The use of free school meal status as a proxy for socioeconomic status: Evidence from matching the Longitudinal 

Study of Young People in England to the National Pupil 

Database 

James Halse and Andrew Ledger 

Department for Children Schools and Families, UK 

James.halse@dcsf.gsi.gov.uk; Andrew.ledger@dcsf.gsi.gov.uk

Introduction 

In 2006, 13.6 per cent of pupils in government maintained secondary schools in England were known 

to be eligible for free school meals (FSM). FSM eligibility is means tested. The proportion of pupils 

eligible for FSM has been steadily decreasing over the past few years. Pupils who are eligible for FSM 

on average do less well at each key stage than non-FSM pupils. For example, at General Certificate of 

Secondary Education (GCSE) and equivalent level in 2006, 33 per cent of FSM pupils achieved the 

expected standard of the equivalent of 5 or more GCSEs at grades A* to C. This compares to 61 per 

cent of non-FSM pupils. Furthermore, the progress made between key stages is on average less for 

FSM pupils than non-FSM. FSM status is the only individual level administrative measure we have of 

a pupil’s family’s financial circumstances. FSM is used interchangeably as a proxy for financial 

hardship or for lower socio-economic status. 

In this paper, we explore the characteristics of FSM pupils. We first look at the evidence from the 

National Pupil Database (NPD), before looking at we what can be learnt from matching NPD data to 

data collected through sample surveys. The main part of the paper concentrates on evidence from the 

Longitudinal Study of Young People in England (LSYPE) matched to NPD. We look at how closely 

FSM status is associated with survey measures of socio-economic status, as well as looking at the 

extent to which the attitudes and aspirations of young people and parents differ according to FSM 

status. 

The Department for Children Schools and Families (DCSF), formerly Department for Education and 

Skills (DfES), has published performance indicators for schools since 1992 in the form of average 

results in public examinations. In 2001, the Department piloted value added measures and rolled these 

out to all secondary schools in 2002. The value added measures take into account pupil attainment at 

age 11 (key stage 2). Value added was seen as a fairer method of measuring school effectiveness as it 

allows comparison of schools with different intakes. The best predictor of attainment at age 16 is prior 

attainment. However, prior attainment is not the only explanatory factor. A school with a high 

proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals can quite reasonably claim that its overall 

performance, or its value added performance, is adversely impacted by the make up of its pupil cohort. 

The difference in the progress and attainment between different groups, and in particular FSM and nonFSM pupils, led to the development of the contextual value added (CVA) model and performance 

tables. The CVA model attempts to control for both prior attainment and pupil characteristics in order 

to allow schools to be compared on a like for like basis. In the final part of the paper, we replace FSM 

status in the CVA model with a survey measure of socio-economic status. 

Evidence from the NPD 

The national pupil data base is a matched longitudinal database of administrative records. It contains 

information on pupil characteristics from the pupil level annual school census (PLASC) and attainment 

data for the key stage 1 (age 6/7), key stage 2 (age 10/11), key stage 3 (age 13/14) and key stage 

4/GCSE (age 15/16). FSM eligibility is collected through PLASC. It is used as a proxy measure for 

socio-economic status as it is not feasible to collect detailed information about family background 

through an administrative data collection. Using the NPD, FSM status and neighbourhood indicators 

such as the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) are the only measures we have to 

assess the relative socio-economic status of school pupils. 

FSM eligibility is means tested. Currently, in order to be eligible, a child’s parent(s) must be in receipt 

of one of the following: 
• Income Support (IS) 

• Income Based Job Seeker’s Allowance (IBJSA) 

• Support under part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 

• Child Tax Credit, provided that their annual income is less than £14,155 (as assessed 

by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs) and they are not in receipt of Working Tax 

Credit. 

• The Guarantee element of State Pension Credit 

However, not all parents with children who would be eligible for free school meals claim eligibility. 

One of the main reasons take up of free school meals is low is the perceived stigma attached to it. 

Storey and Chamberlain (DfES, 2001) found that a third of the pupils they surveyed and over two fifths 

of parents identified embarrassment or fear of being teased as a key factor which put people off taking 

their free meal. They also found that some parents were not aware of their eligibility. So while FSM 

eligibility should indicate some level of economic deprivation, some non-FSM pupils will also 

experience similar levels of economic deprivation. The non take up of FSM also raises the possibility 

that an FSM variable might have explanatory power over and above other indicators of economic 

deprivation. There may be a substantive difference between the characteristics of those who would be 

eligible, but do not apply, and those who do apply. 

Apart from doing less well at school, we know relatively little about the characteristics of pupils 

eligible for free school meals. We do know from the administrative data that FSM pupils are: 

• More likely than non-FSM pupils to move schools mid year 

• More likely to live in urban areas 

• More greatly represented among Black African, Bangladeshi and Pakistani ethnic groups. 

• More likely to have a language other than English as their first language 

The Department’s contextual value added models also bring out some interesting points. For example, 

the FSM effect is much smaller on pupils from all ethnic minority backgrounds. 

Linking the NPD to survey data 

By matching administrative data to data collected through social surveys, we can find out a lot more 

about the ways in which FSM pupils and their families differ from non-FSM in their material 

backgrounds and their attitudes. Vignoles and Hobbs (2007) looked at the use of FSM as a proxy for 

socio-economic status using data the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) 

linked to NPD. They found that FSM status was an imperfect proxy for low income or workless 

families or lone-parenthood. Furthermore, they concluded that when FSM status was used as a control 

in an ordinary regression, it sometimes biased the results when compared to a survey measure of socioeconomic status. The weaknesses of their analysis, which the authors admit, is that socio-economic 

status and FSM status were measured at different times (SES typically when the child was 4, FSM at 

age 10/11), and that the ALSPAC sample is not nationally representative. 

Evidence from linking the Youth Cohort Study (YCS) to NPD showed that in a simple model of GCSE 

attainment, FSM explained less of the variation in attainment than the survey measure of parental 

socio-economic classification (DfES 2006a, pp 50-51). DCSF internal analysis of the YCS linked to 

the NPD showed that although FSM pupils were less likely than non-FSM to be participating in full 

time education in the spring following the completion of compulsory education, when other factors 

were controlled for (e.g. region, ethnic group, sex, GCSE attainment), FSM pupils were more likely to 

be participating. 

We have linked NPD data to data from wave 1 of the Longitudinal Study of Young People in England 

(LSYPE) at individual level. The LSYPE is a new longitudinal study funded by the DCSF similar to 

the American National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY). Wave 1 data were collected through 

interviews with over 15,000 young people in year 9 (aged 13/14) and their parents in the 

Spring/Summer of 20041

. We aim to follow these young people through until they are aged 25. The 

 

1

 For more information about the LSYPE sample design, see appendix 
richness of information collected through LSYPE gives us the best opportunity to date to better 

understand what the FSM proxy stands for. In the LSYPE wave 1 weighted sample linked to NPD, 15 

per cent of young people are FSM eligible. 

Comparing FSM to other socio-economic indicators on LSYPE 

Looking first at the FSM eligibility criteria, the matched data shows that FSM pupils came from 

households with much lower incomes than non-FSM pupils. Three quarters of FSM pupils come from 

households with an income of £13,000 a year or less, and half come from households with total annual 

income of £9,485 or less. Conversely, three quarters of non-FSM pupils came from households with an 

income of more than £13,000 a year. 

The majority (69 per cent) of FSM pupils come from households in receipt of income support. All 

those on income support should be eligible for FSM. However 17 per cent of pupils from families on 

income support are not registered as FSM eligible. This discrepancy could be due to non-take up of 

FSM, or due to timing differences. If a family only recently became dependent on income support, they 

may not yet have claimed for free school meals. 

Single parent status and household composition 

Low income families are often single parent families. Around a quarter of the young people in LSYPE 

live in single parent households. Of these, 36 per cent are FSM pupils. Looked at another way, 58 per 

cent of FSM pupils come from single parent households. Despite this, the average size of household is 

larger for FSM pupils (4.5 persons) compared to non-FSM (4.3 persons). FSM pupils have more 

siblings – an average of 2.2 other brothers and sisters living with them compared to 1.5 for non FSM 

pupils. 

Socio-Economic Classification (NS-SEC) 

Politicians are concerned about the under achievement of “working class” pupils, especially boys. 

When they talk about working class, they often mean “FSM eligible”. Defining “working class” is 

problematic. In the UK we use the National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification. This is an 

occupation based classification system with 8 classes: Higher professional; lower professional; 

intermediate; small employers and own account workers; lower supervisory; semi routine; routine; and 

never worked/long term unemployed. 

FSM pupils are more likely to come from households where the head of household is either long term 

unemployed (31 per cent), or employed in a routine or semi routine occupation (23 per cent and 21 per 

cent respectively) (Figure 1). Looking at the proportion from each class who are FSM eligible, 76 per 

cent of pupils from families where the head of household is long term unemployed are claiming 

eligibility for free school meals, while around a quarter of those from routine backgrounds and a fifth 

from semi-routine back grounds are FSM eligible. It is clear from the linked LSYPE/NPD data, that 

FSM is not a particularly accurate proxy for NS-SEC. The majority of pupils from routine and semiroutine backgrounds are not claiming FSM eligibility. And although the majority of pupils from 

workless families are eligible for FSM, the majority of FSM pupils are not from workless families. 

FSM status and housing tenure, vehicle ownership and consumer durables 

Across a range of other indicators of material deprivation, FSM pupils are worse off. They are more 

likely to live in rented accommodation as compared non-FSM (81 per cent compared to 19 per cent). 

They live in households that are less likely to have access to car and less likely to have a home 

computer. When parents were asked how well their households were managing on their income at the 

moment, the parents of FSM pupils were much more likely to say they were getting into difficulties 

(Figure 2). 
FSM and parental education 

Mothers of FSM pupils are less well qualified than those of non-FSM pupils. Only 2 per cent have a 

degree, and more than half have no qualifications at all. Similarly, fathers of FSM pupils are less well 

qualified. 

Attitudes and aspirations of FSM pupils and their parents 

Young people in LSYPE were asked about what they would like to do after they finished compulsory 

education at age 16. 78 per cent of 13/14 year olds from maintained schools said they would like to 

continue in full time education. When split by FSM status, a much lower percentage said they wanted 

to remain in full time education (70 per cent as compared to 79 per cent for non-FSM). We know from 

the Youth Cohort Studies that attainment is the best predictor of post-16 participation. When we 

control for attainment, FSM pupils were slightly more likely to say they wanted to stay in full time 

education. This is not surprising. Minority ethnic groups tend to have higher staying on rates, and some 

of these groups are over represented among FSM pupils. When we control for ethnic group and 

attainment at age 14, FSM is no longer a significant predictor (table 1a). Replacing FSM in the model 

with NS-SEC of head of household sheds some light on why FSM is not a good predictor of intentions 

towards staying in education at age 16. Children from households in the lower supervisory, routine and 

semi-routine groups are less likely to want to stay in education than those from professional 

households. However, those from households where the head of household is long term unemployed 

are no less likely to want to stay in education than those from professional households (table 1b). 

At wave 1 of the LSYPE a series of questions were asked aimed at eliciting a school attitude score. 

When the responses to these questions were compared for the FSM and the non-FSM groups, there was 

a small but significant difference. Non-FSM pupils were slightly more pro school than non-FSM. 

In the study, interviews were conducted with the main parent. In two parent households, the main 

parent was defined as the parent most involved in the young person’s education. Main parents were 

asked questions about how satisfied they were with various aspects of their child’s school. These can 

be combined to create a parental school satisfaction score. Parents of FSM children were slightly less 

satisfied with their child’s school. Parents of FSM children were also less likely to find it easy to deal 

with people at their child’s school. However, in terms of how personally involved parents felt in their 

child’s school life, there was no difference between the FSM and non-FSM groups. 

FSM status and risk factors 

The LSYPE contains a number of questions about various risk factors such as whether the young 

person has tried cannabis, whether s/he has ever shoplifted or played truant or been involved in a public 

disturbance. 9 such risk factors were added together to create a summated score ranging from 1 to 9. 

The prevalence of risk was much greater for the FSM group, with over half having experienced at least 

1 factor compared to just over a third of non-FSM pupils. 

Measuring academic progress between ages 11 and 16 

The Department for Children Schools and Families publish annually the School and College 

Achievement and Attainment Tables (SCAAT). These tables show for every secondary school in 

England, the proportion of pupils gaining 5 or more GCSEs at grades A* to C. This is the expected 

standard. GCSE grades can be converted into points. The tables also give the average GCSE points 

score per pupil for each school. These measures of attainment do not tell the public what value the 

school has added. Schools with a high proportion of pupils gaining 5 or more A* to C will probably be 

located in affluent areas, and their intake will have been high achievers in primary school. To evaluate 

what impact schools had on their pupils’ attainment at age 16, a value added score was calculated 

based on the pupils’ attainment at age 11. This still seemed unfair as factors other than attainment at 11 

and schools affect attainment at 16. This led to the development of contextual value added (CVA) 

scores. CVA is designed to account for the prior attainment and social characteristics of the pupil 

cohort. FSM is used as a proxy for socio-economic status in the CVA calculation. Controlling for other 

factors, pupils who are FSM eligible score 25 few GCSE points than non-FSM pupils. 6 GCSE points 

equates to one grade – so the FSM effect is the equivalent of dropping a grade in 4 subjects. The 
coefficients from the Department’s CVA model are shown in table 2.

Using just the NPD data for the LSYPE sample gives similar coefficients. Because the LSYPE sample 

is only 15,000, some independent variables that are significant in the full NPD model (based on approx 

600,000 cases) are not significant in the LSYPE sample. For example, there was no significant 

interaction between FSM status and ethnicity in the LSYPE model. Furthermore, some categories had 

to be combined in the LSYPE model (e.g. ethnic groups) (table 3a). 

In order to test how useful FSM is as a proxy for socio economic status, we replaced FSM in the model 

with a number of survey measures of socio-economic status and family background: family socioeconomic classification; single parent status; receipt of income support; tenure; whether the family had 

access to a car; how well the family was managing on income; size of household; and highest 

qualification of the parent most involved in the young person’s education (i.e. the “main parent”). 

Unfortunately it was not possible to include income in the regression as income data was missing in the 

majority of cases for some minority ethnic groups. The coefficients from the new model are presented 

in table 3b. 

The most noticeable difference between the two models is the size of the Income Deprivation Affecting 

Children Index (IDACI) coefficient. IDACI is a neighbourhood based index of deprivation. Replacing 

FSM with a survey measure of socio economic status halves the size of the IDACI coefficient. 

However, neighbourhood deprivation is still significant, even after controlling for family background. 

There are small, but non significant changes to other coefficients in the model. The largest of these 

changes is to the quadratic of prior attainment, the size of which reduces by 1.55 standard errors. 

Replacing FSM with the survey measure of socio-economic status increases the amount of variance 

explained by the model by 2 percentage points.2

 If we run the model again, but include FSM status 

along with the survey measures of socio-economic status, FSM is not significant3

. 

In terms of the survey measures, those from workless families, or families where the head of household 

is employed in a routine job make the least progress between ages 11 and 16. As we saw earlier, half of 

FSM pupils fall into these groups. However, the model also shows that on average, anyone not from a 

professional or intermediate background is likely to make less progress between key stages. The simple 

dichotomous measure of FSM status does not capture this. 

We also saw how for over half of FSM respondents, the parent most involved in their education had no 

qualifications. The model gives a coefficient of -24 for the main parent having no qualifications 

compared to a parent with a degree. Around a third of FSM pupils come from households where the 

main parent has no qualifications and the head of household is either in a routine job or unemployed. 

The FSM coefficient from the NPD model understates the disadvantage experienced by many FSM 

pupils who experience multiple factors associated with low attainment. 

A further noticeable finding from the new model is the negative effect on attainment of single parent 

status, even after controlling for economic circumstances. Ledger (2006) found that there was no effect 

of lone parent status on pupil attainment at age 14 after controlling for FSM status. Hobbes and 

Vignoles (2007) give a helpful review of the literature and suggest the evidence on lone parent family 

status, conditional on economic circumstances, is mixed. One of the ways in which children from 

single parent families may be disadvantaged is through a lack of parental involvement. Desforges and 

Abouchaar concluded that parental involvement was positively associated with higher pupil attainment 

after controlling for other factors. They also found that the degree of parental involvement was 

diminished by (among other things) “material deprivation, maternal psychosocial ill health, 

and single parent status” (Desforges and Abouchaar, 2003, pp 85-86). 

Conclusions and further work 

FSM, along with IDACI, is a reasonable control measure in the CVA model. When FSM is replaced 

with the survey measure of socio-economic status, there are only minor changes to the other 

coefficients in the model. However, FSM status is a poor proxy for the effects of socio-economic status 

on attainment. It does not capture the multiple factors associated with low attainment experienced by 

some FSM pupils, nor does it capture the factors associated with low attainment experienced by non-

 

2

 R-squared for NPD only model is 0.60. R-squared for model with survey measure of socio-economic status is 0.62. 

3

 P = 0.574
FSM pupils. For example, 63 percent of pupils from single parent families are not FSM eligible. The 

CVA model demonstrates that there is a social class/financial hardship gap in attainment and 

progression. It does not adequately demonstrate the magnitude of that gap. The success or failure of 

policy interventions to reduce the socio-economic status attainment gap needs to be evaluated on more 

than just FSM status. 

Further work should be undertaken to understand the mechanisms through which pupils from more 

deprived backgrounds make less progress in secondary school. Is it just an issue of material 

deprivation, or does it have more to do with inherited characteristics? For instance, we could look at the 

impact of adding attitudes to school, measures of parental involvement and engagement, and risk 

factors to the model. The problem is that many factors associated with higher attainment are also 

associated with higher socio-economic status, and also higher prior attainment. For example, if we add 

the “positive attitude to school” score to the model, we see a positive association with attainment. 

However, this might be because doing well at school leads to pupils having a more positive attitude to 

school. Dealing with these problems will be no small task. 

Tables and charts 

Figure 1: FSM status and NS-SEC of head of 

household - Year 9 pupils in England, 2004

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Non-FSM FSM

Never worked/long term

unemployed

Routine occupations

Semi-routine occupations

Lower supervisory and

technical occupations

Small employers and own

account workers

Intermediate occupations

Lower managerial and

professional occupations

Higher Managerial and

professional occupations
Figure 2: How well is household managing on 

income? Parents of year 9 pupils in England, 

2004

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Non-FSM FSM

Getting into difficulties

Just getting by, unable to save

Managing quite well, able to

save or spend on leisure

Table 1a: Effect of FSM status on the odds of planning to remain in full time education at age 16 

Odds ratio (upper 95% CI, 

lower 95% CI) 

 

FSM status Non-FSM 

 FSM 1.06 (0.89, 1.27) 

Ethnic group - white 

 - mixed 1.55 (1.09, 2.2) 

 - Indian 4.58 (3.12, 6.71) 

 - Pakistani 5.15 (3.57, 7.42) 

 - Bangladeshi 5.27 (3.43, 8.09) 

 - Black Caribbean 2.93 (2.05, 4.18) 

 - Black African 28.09 (10.7, 73.77) 

 - other ethnic group 3.49 (1.97, 6.21) 

Attainment at age 

14 KS3 average points score 1.15 (1.13, 1.16) 

Table 1b: Effects of family NS-SEC on the odds of planning to remain in full time education at 

age 16 

Odds ratio (upper 95% CI, 

lower 95% CI) 

NS-SEC - professional 

- intermediate 0.74 (0.63, 0.87) 

- lower supervisory/routine 0.7 (0.6, 0.81) 

- never worked/long term unemployed 1.01 (0.76, 1.35) 

Ethnic group - white 

 - mixed 1.53 (1.08, 2.17) 

 - Indian 4.65 (3.17, 6.84) 

 - Pakistani 4.97 (3.45, 7.14) 

 - Bangladeshi 5.11 (3.33, 7.84) 

 - Black Caribbean 2.85 (2, 4.06) 

 - Black African 25.57 (9.65, 67.79) 

 - other ethnic group 3.34 (1.9, 5.85) 

Attainment at age 

14 KS3 average points score 1.14 (1.13, 1.15) 
Table 2: KS2-4 Contextual Value Added model 2006 

National Pupil Database

Average capped GCSE 

point score 

 

(Constant) 132.315 

Quadratic of KS2 Average Point Score 0.3876 

KS2 fine grade average points score -5.523 

KS2english -KS2 average point score fine grades 2.330 

KS2maths -KS2 average point score fine grades 0.376 

Does student have FSM? (no) 0 

Does student have FSM? (yes) -25.122 

Deprivation indicator - IDACI score -65.191 

Does student have SEN - Action Plus? -63.563 

Does student have SEN - school action? -37.349 

Pupil joined school after Sept Yr 10 -75.622 

Pupil joined not in Jul/Aug/Sept yrs 7, 8, 9 -24.226 

Male 0 

Female 14.569 

Age within academic year -14.036 

First language: English or believed to be English 0 

First language: Other or believed to be other -12.458 

Is the student White British? 0 

Is the student White Irish? -1.402 

Is the student a White Irish traveller? -45.524 

Is the student White Gypsy/Roma? -58.762 

Is the student White other? 11.061 

Is the student Mixed White/Black Caribbean? -2.348 

Is the student Mixed White/Black African? 9.408 

Is the student Mixed White/Asian? 9.266 

Is the student any other Mixed ethnic group? 5.783 

Is the student Indian? 24.419 

Is the student Pakistani? 17.504 

Is the student Bangladeshi? 23.814 

Is the student any other Asian ethnic group? 27.163 

Is the student Black Caribbean? 11.922 

Is the student Black African? 28.622 

Is the student any other Black ethnic group? 7.031 

Is the student Chinese? 34.156 

Is the student any other ethnic group? 22.169 

Is the student in an unclassified ethnic group? -9.373 

FSM* White British 0 

FSM*Irish -3.9217 

FSM*Traveller of Irish heritage -32.9276 

FSM*Gypsy/ Roma 27.8899 

FSM*Any other white background 25.8494 

FSM*White and Black Caribbean 11.3006 

FSM*White and Black African 3.7395 

FSM*White and Asian 13.2769 

FSM*Any other mixed background 6.7990 

FSM*Indian 18.8529 

FSM*Pakistani 21.0732 

FSM*Bangladeshi 22.2634 

FSM*Any other Asian background 24.2656 

FSM*Caribbean 20.3238 

FSM*Black African 19.9224 

FSM*Any other black background 25.8815 

FSM*Chinese 27.7773 

FSM*Any other ethnic group 30.6513 

FSM*Unclassified ethnic group 4.5587 
EAL*KS2APS 5.4708 

EAL*Quadratic of KS2 APS -0.1584 

Has the student ever been in care at this school? (no) 0 

Has the student ever been in care at this school? (yes) -31.236 

KS2 average point score of cohort 2.490 

KS2 standard deviation in cohort -5.526 

Table 3a: KS2-4 Contextual Value Added model 2006 

LSYPE linked to NPD 

Average capped 

GCSE points score 

Coefficient (std. err.)

Constant 94.88 (31.96)** 

Quadratic of KS2 Average Point Score 0.31 (0.04)*** 

KS2 fine grade average points score -0.47 (2.36) 

Pupil has FSM -25.92 (3.59)*** 

IDACI -75.04 (6.31)*** 

Pupil has special educational needs -49.32 (3.69)*** 

Pupil joined school mid year -34.03 (5.15)*** 

Pupil is female 18.29 (1.65)*** 

Age in months within year -1.36 (0.22)*** 

First language is or is believed to be other than English 35.74 (4.96)*** 

Ethnic group - mixed 10.53 (4.22)* 

Ethnic group - Indian 10.79 (5.09)* 

Ethnic group - Pakistani 8.61 (6.11) 

Ethnic group - Bangladeshi 17.3 (7.26)* 

Ethnic group - Black Caribbean 24.46 (4.96)*** 

Ethnic group - Black African 39.63 (7.05)*** 

Ethnic group - Other 27 (8.15)*** 

*, ** and *** indicate 95%, 99% and 99.9% significance levels respectively 

Table 3b: KS2-4 Contextual Value Added model 2006 

LSYPE linked to NPD with survey measures of socio-economic status 

Average capped 

GCSE points score 

Coefficient (std. err.)

Constant 105.27 (32.26)*** 

Quadratic of KS2 Average Point Score 0.25 (0.04)*** 

KS2 fine grade average points score 1.74 (2.37) 

IDACI -35.65 (6.35)*** 

Pupil has special educational needs -47.75 (3.61)*** 

Pupil joined school mid year -31.08 (5.07)*** 

Pupil is female 18.85 (1.59)*** 

Age in months within year -1.18 (0.21)*** 

First language is or is believed to be other than English 39.48 (4.81)*** 

Ethnic group - mixed 13.06 (4.09)*** 

Ethnic group - Indian 9 (5.04) 

Ethnic group - Pakistani 4.98 (5.9) 

Ethnic group - Bangladeshi 18.06 (7.56)* 

Ethnic group - Black Caribbean 26.6 (4.82)*** 

Ethnic group - Black African 35.3 (6.72)*** 

Ethnic group - Other 31 (7.98)*** 
NS-SEC lower professional -3 (1.93) 

NS-SEC intermediate 0.3 (2.96) 

NS-SEC small employers and own account workers -7.64 (2.56)** 

NS-SEC lower supervisory -14.55 (2.65)*** 

NS-SEC semi routine -11.33 (3.08)*** 

NS-SEC routine -22.52 (3.48)*** 

NS-SEC never worked/long term unemployed -21.05 (5.23)*** 

Main parent has higher education quals below degree level -9.5 (2.47)*** 

Main parent has A levels or equivalent -10.17 (2.39)*** 

Main parent has GCSEs grades A-C or equivalent -14.97 (2.22)*** 

Main parent has other qualifications -16.8 (3.2)*** 

Main parent has no qualifications -23.96 (3.13)*** 

Single parent family -18.05 (2.34)*** 

Family in receipt of income support -3.85 (3.79) 

Home is rented -9.78 (2.38)*** 

Family has access to a car 10.16 (3.28)** 

Family is getting by on income -6.55 (1.73)*** 

Family is getting into difficulties on income -16.14 (4.32)*** 

Size of household -1.91 (0.77)* 

*, ** and *** indicate 95%, 99% and 99.9% significance levels respectively 

References 

Andrews, J (2005) “Examining Pupil Progress: Applications of the National Pupil Database”, paper 

given to 10th Government Statistical Service methodology conference 

Desforges and Abouchaar (2003) “The Impact of Parental Involvement, Parental Support and Family 

Education on Pupil Achievements and Adjustment: A Literature Review”, Research report, Department 

for Education and Skills 

DfES (2006a) “Trends in Attainment Gaps”, Statistical Bulletin, Department for Education and Skills 

DfES (2006b) “Schools and Pupils in England: January 2006”, Statistical First Release, Department for 

Education and Skills 

DfES (2007) “National Curriculum Assessments, GCSE and Equivalent Attainment and Post-16 

Attainment by Pupil Characteristics, in England 2005/06” Statistical First Release, Department for 

Education and Skills 

Hobbs and Vignoles (2007) “Is Free School Meal Status a Valid Proxy for Socio-Economic Status (in 

Schools Research)? Centre for Economics of Education 

Ledger (2006) “Children in lone parent families”, DfES internal analysis 

Storey and Chamberlin (2001) “Improving the Take Up of Free School Meals”, Research report, 

Department for Education and Employment 
Appendix 

The Longitudinal Study of Young People in England 

Overview 

The Longitudinal Study of Young People in England (LSYPE), known to its participants as the Next 

Steps Study, is a major innovative panel study of young people which brings together data from a 

number of different sources, including both annual interviews with young people and their parents and 

administrative sources. 

Its key role is to identify, and enable analysis and understanding of, the key factors affecting young 

people’s progress in transition from the later years of compulsory education, through any subsequent 

education or training, to entry into the labour market or other outcomes. Data from the study will be 

used, among other things, to monitor the progress of the cohort group, evaluate the success or 

otherwise of policy aimed at this group and provide an evidence base for further policy development. 

Beginning in spring 2004, when the young people sampled were in Year 9 (aged 13-14), sample 

members and their parents are interviewed annually. The first three Waves used face to face 

interviewing and this will be continued in Wave 4 but data collection at some subsequent Waves may 

be primarily by telephone. Current plans are to continue interviewing young people for up to 11 waves 

(age 25). 

Fieldwork for waves 1 to 3 was carried out by a consortium of BMRB, GFK-NOP and Ipsos-MORI. 

Data collected through interviews are supplemented by linkage to administrative databases, such as the 

National Pupil Database.

Sample design 

The original sample drawn for Wave 1 of the study was just over 21,000. The target population

sampled was young people in Year 9 (or equivalent) in all schools in England in February 2004 and 

born between 1st September 1989 and 31st August 1990. 

For various practical reasons certain exclusions were made. Among those excluded from the sample 

are: those educated solely at home (and therefore not present on a school roll); pupils in schools with 

fewer than 10 (maintained sector) or fewer than 6 (independent sector) Y9 pupils (less than 1% of the 

cohort); boarders and those in the UK solely for education purposes. 

LSYPE used a two stage sample. At the first stage a sample of 892 schools was drawn with probability 

proportional to size (the size measure being a weighted sum of Y9 pupils) from a stratified frame, 

stratification factors included region, % gaining 5 or more A-C grades in 2003, gender and LEA. These 

schools were then approached for access to their pupil rolls. Of these 647 (73%) co-operated with the 

study. School level non-response was a specific problem however in London, especially Inner London 

(56%), and the independent sector (57%). At the second stage a sample of pupils in Y9 was drawn from 

the school rolls along with their parental and address details (these details not being available from 

PLASC returns before 2006). The average number of pupils sampled per school was 32. In the 

maintained sector schools the number sampled per school varied, however, according to the ethnic 

group composition of the school population. 

Sample boosts took place for deprivation factors and for ethnicity. Schools with 20% or more of pupils 

entitled to Free School Meals were over-sampled by 1.5 and over-sampling for ethnicity was 

implemented at pupil level sampling in the maintained sector. Pupil level boost samples were made in 

the following groups: Black African; Black Caribbean; Bangladeshi; Indian; Pakistani and Mixed. This 

was possible because there is an ethnic group indicator returned from 2003 onwards on the Pupil Level 

Annual School Census (PLASC). The boost method used means that these boosts are representative 

samples of the relevant sub-populations as a whole rather than e.g. drawn disproportionately from areas 

or schools with high numbers of ethnic minority pupils. 

After cleaning to remove cases where e.g. a home address was incomplete or unidentifiable the issued 

sample at Wave 1 was 21,234. 

Questionnaire 
The young person is the primary focus of this survey. However, interviews were also sought with all 

parental figures that the young person lived with. 

The questionnaire is split into the following sections. 

• Household section 

• Young person section 

• Main adult section 

• Young person history section 

• Individual adult section 

Where there were no parental figures in the household the main and individual adult sections were 

completed by the young person’s guardian who had most involvement in their education. 

The household section 

This section is asked at the beginning of the interview, of a responsible parent or guardian of the young 

person. It establishes household information and the identity of the person/ people in the household 

who should complete the ‘main adult’ and ‘second adult’ questionnaires. 

Young person section 

This interview is asked of the young person and could only be completed once the household section 

has been completed. Topics include year 10 subject choices, attitudes towards current school, future 

plans, homework and use of leisure time. This section also included some ‘self completion’ questions 

covering experiences of truancy, bullying, smoking and drug taking, and attitudes towards school and 

relationship with parents/guardians). 

Main adult section 

This section is asked of the main adult respondent, who is identified at the end of the household section 

(if more than one parent/guardian is resident). Topics include attitudes towards young person’s school, 

aspirations about young person’s future and whether young person has any Special Educational Needs. 

This section also included ‘self completion’ questions covering a number of more sensitive issues such 

as relationship with young person and whether they have had any contact with services. The individual 

adult section (detailed below) was asked of the main adult prior to recording future contact details. 

Young person history section 

This section is asked of the ‘history respondent’. This is defined as: 

(i) the natural mother of the sampled young person if both natural parents are resident 

(ii) the natural father if the natural mother is not resident 

(iii) the main adult respondent if neither natural parent is resident. 

Topics include details of the young person’s birth, health and school history. It also includes the 

relationship history of the ‘history respondent’ and their history of living with the young person. 

Individual adult section 

This section is asked directly of any parents living in the household. Where there were no adults in the 

household in a parental relationship to the young person the section was answered by the guardian who 

was identified as the main adult. Topics include their education and qualifications, current 

employment, employment history and health. 

Fieldwork 

Interviews were conducted face-to-face using computer assisted personal interviewing (CAPI). The 

overall contracted average length of interviews if all sections were completed was 1 hour 30 minutes; 

35 minutes for the Young Person interview, 55 minutes for all adult interviews (Household, Main 

Adult, Second Adult, Child History). All young people who completed an interview were given a £5 

high street voucher as a token of thanks. These were given to the young person specifically, as the 

young person was the focus of the study. 

Wave 1 fieldwork ran from 30th March 2004 to 19th October 2004 for all companies. Fieldwork was 

divided across the three companies in the following proportions: 

• BMRB 45% 

• GfK NOP 45% 
• Ipsos MORI 10%. 

Response 

Wave 1 achieved 15,770 households (74%). This comprises 13,914 full interviews (66%) and 1,856 

partial interviews (9%). A partial interview is where not all target members of the household were 

interviewed. In the majority of these cases, it is the second adult interview that is missing.