Does the index of segregation matter ? The composition of secondary schools in England since 1996

This paper presents a new analysis of segregation between schools in terms of pupils living in poverty, for all secondary schools in England from 1996 to 2005. This shows that the clustering of similar pupils in specific schools increased noticeably from 1996 to 2001, but then settled at a level still below that of 1989 when official records began. The analysis uses four estimates of segregation using figures for take-up of, and eligibility for, free school meals compiled to create both the dissimilarity index and what has been termed the Gorard index of segregation. All four estimates give the same substantive results, and the findings for the dissimilarity index and the Gorard index of segregation using either measure of FSM are indistinguishable. The two indices are, therefore, measuring the same thing. However, the Gorard index of segregation is again shown to be more tolerant of the precise measure being used, and so more strongly composition invariant than the dissimilarity index. This has important implications both for the past debate on how to measure segregation between schools, and for how education authorities go about estimating segregation in the future. Introduction: the dangers of SES segregation Since at least 1997, when initial analyses showed no increase in socio-economic segregation between secondary schools following the Education Reform Act 1988 (Gorard 1997), there has been what Allen and Vignoles (2006) call ‘a vigorous debate that continues unabated’ about the findings. This paper re-visits that debate through a new analysis of the figures for all secondary schools in England over a decade, using a variety of techniques and measures. But before moving onto how segregation is measured, and what the actual trends over time have been, the paper briefly considers why it matters who goes to school with whom. Discussing how to measure segregation between schools, and so the trend in segregation over time and its cause, is a fascinating exercise. However, it must not be forgotten that the level of socio-economic segregation in any national school system is more than just a curiosity (Gorard and Smith 2004). It is possible to argue that the concentration of disadvantaged pupils within areas or schools is a practical advantage when seeking to administer some ameliorative package (Simpson 2004). In addition to making focussed interventions easier, the separation of more affluent and more deprived pupils between schools might reduce any resentment produced by the scale of income inequality (Gordon and Monastiriotis 2006). On the other hand, focussing disadvantage into areas or particular schools may also polarise information about