The Reliability of Free School Meal Eligibility as a Measure of Socio-Economic Disadvantage: Evidence from the Millennium Cohort Study in Wales

(2018) - Chris Taylor

Journal: British Journal of Educational Studies
Link:: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00071005.2017.1330464
DOI:: 10.1080/00071005.2017.1330464
Links::
Tags:: #paper #Methods #SocialClass #FSM #KeyVariables
Cite Key:: [@taylorReliabilityFreeSchool2018]

Abstract

Over the last 20 years, the use of administrative data has become central to understanding pupil attainment and school performance. Of most importance has been its use to robustly demonstrate the impact of socio-economic status (SES) on pupil attainment. Much of this analysis in England and Wales has relied on whether pupils are eligible for free school meals (eFSM). However, very little is known about the validity of this measure as a proxy for SES. Using a recent major birth cohort study, this paper examines the relationship between pupils’ eFSM and their more detailed socio-economic circumstances.

Notes

Annotations

(21/08/2022, 12:28:17)

“Not only is eFSM an important metric for research and analysis but now it is also being used as a mechanism for funding schools.” (Taylor, 2018, p. 29)

“They concluded, ‘Despite its frequent use, however, the free lunch variable possesses important deficiencies that suggest that other measures of SES should be considered’ (2010, p. 128).” (Taylor, 2018, p. 30)

“But it was only in 1937 when Wal Hannington, President of the National Unemployed Workers Movement, recommended that all children with unemployed parents should be entitled to free school lunches (Welshman, 1997). Since that time there has been a gradual increase in the number of children who were given free school lunches. But it was not until the 1980 Education Act that it became a statutory duty for local authorities to provide free school meals for all children whose parents were in receipt of State supplementary benefit or income support (although the later 1986 Social Security Act removed the benefit of free school meals to thousands of children).” (Taylor, 2018, p. 31)

“There is some evidence that school meals help improve concentration (Golley et al., 2010; Storey et al., 2011). There is also some recent evidence that providing free school meals was associated with increased educational attainment, particularly those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds (Kitchen et al., 2013).” (Taylor, 2018, p. 31)

“The first main concern is that not all children who may be eFSM have formally applied for free school meals.” (Taylor, 2018, p. 32)

“For example, 15 years ago, Storey and Chamberlin (2001) found that 11% of parents interviewed across 13 schools should have been eligible, but were neither aware that they could be eligible nor knew how to apply.” (Taylor, 2018, p. 32)

“The second critique is that the criteria for entitlement do not necessarily capture all children living in poverty.” (Taylor, 2018, p. 32)

“he third criticism of eFSM is that it does not capture the multidimensional nature of socio-economic disadvantage” (Taylor, 2018, p. 33)

“A final criticism of eFSM relates to its binary nature. This means it is impossible to observe variability within either the eFSM group of children or the non-FSM children” (Taylor, 2018, p. 34)

“In terms of assessing the reliability of eFSM as a measure of socio-economic disadvantage, this simple binary measure is a very good indicator. However, in the context of its relationship with educational outcomes the limitations of this measure are more clearly highlighted” (Taylor, 2018, p. 46)

“It is certainly the case that eFSM is not a perfect proxy for socioeconomic disadvantage, and that there are quite significant numbers of other children who experience socio-economic disadvantage of one form or another.” (Taylor, 2018, p. 48)