Final report of the Access Data Short-Life Working Group

Free School Meals

Background

Work undertaken by the previous ADWG, showed that FSM would be a suitable proxy for a measure of deprivation of school leavers. Eligibility for FSM in secondary schools is largely based on income and the receipt of income/unemployment related benefits. The data on registrations for FSM is recorded by schools and held by each of the 32 Local Authorities (LAs). Subsequently, an anonymised version of the data is collected by the Scottish Government (SG) as part of the Pupil Census for statistics and research purposes only. As it is anonymised, the FSM data currently collected as part of the Pupil Census cannot be used to identify individuals, nor can it be shared with any other organisation.

The previous ADWG looked at a number of ways of capturing FSM for school leavers (simplified as S5 and S6 in this analysis) and focused on two measures in particular:

• FSM final: capturing those registered for their final year of schooling, and
• FSM ever-6: capturing those registered for FSM at secondary school in any of the 6 years.

In 2019, the ADWG concluded that a FSM ever-6 registration measure that looks at whether a school leaver has been in receipt of FSM at some point over the previous 6 years should be included in the set of measures - subject to quality and availability of data. The ADWG made this decision for a number of reasons, but ultimately as it felt this would help broaden access to a wider range of students with experience of socioeconomic disadvantage. (Identifying Access Students - Report from the Access Data Working Group.pdf (www.gov.scot)) This data would be used to identify learners from low income households within schools who were applying to Higher Education from school or shortly after.

As such, as part of the work developed by the short-life working group, the suitability of the data was reassessed and explored (objective 1).

Representation of FSM registration among school leavers in HE

In order to assess if FSM data was still suitable as a proxy measure of deprivation, analysis was conducted exploring the proportion of school leavers registered for FSM that progressed to Higher Education (HE). This was done by comparing the baseline data for the work conducted in 2019 (i.e. 2015/16) and adding one year pre-COVID19 pandemic (i.e. 2018/19) and another post-COVID19 pandemic (i.e. 2021/22).

Table 1 shows that between 2015/16 and 2018/19 there was a small decrease in the number of school leavers registered for FSM. However, there was a small increase between 2018/19 and 2021/22 – with this most recent year now representing 23% of total leavers. Additionally, Table 1 also shows the number of leavers progressing to HE with the latest year, 2021/22, showing an increase to 13% of all leavers. This table shows that only a small proportion of those in receipt of FSM progress to HE and hence demonstrates a continued need to support this cohort of students. FSM status therefore continues to be relevant for the purposes of widening access.

Source: SG Secondary Analysis of FSM data

Note 1: The total attainment of 2021/22 school leavers may have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Either through the changes or modifications to the certification of National Qualifications (e.g. National 5s, Highers) in years 2020, 2021 and 2022, and/or through any influence of the pandemic on pupils’ decisions on when to leave school. This may in turn have affected their choices and the opportunities available to them on leaving school. The effects of the pandemic on attainment and therefore on post-school destinations should be kept in mind when considering changes in leaver destinations over time. For more information please see chapter 1 of the Summary statistics for attainment and initial leaver destinations No. 5: 2023 edition.

Note 2: Based on initial leaver destinations (approximately 3 months after the end of the school year).

Use in combination with SIMD20

In addition to looking at FSM as an individual-level measure of deprivation, it is useful to explore how FSM and SIMD interact. This could aid the understanding of the overall context of deprivation. As such, analysis was conducted on the overlap between FSM registration of school leavers and those from SIMD20 areas.

Table 2 shows that the size of the group of S5/S6 school leavers who have received FSMs and the proportion of this group living in SIMD20. In 2021/22, 23% of the S5/S6 leavers were receiving FSM. This analysis shows that less than half of those obtaining FSMs are in an SIMD20 area (44% in 2021/22) and therefore shows that FSM is not that closely aligned with SIMD deprived areas.

Source: SG Secondary Analysis of FSM data

Note 3: 2021/22 leavers uses SIMD 2020. 2018/19 leavers uses SIMD 2016. 2015/16 leavers uses SIMD 2012.

Table 3 provides the breakdown by LA as published by the Scottish Government and analysis published by the National Records of Scotland, including the population of 0-15 year olds in each LA and the population of 0-15 year olds in each LA that live in SIMD20 areas. The table covers different points in time, but still provides a useful reference.

This table shows that in general, for LAs with large proportions of SIMD20, there is a lower proportion of the school roll in receipt of FSM. Conversely, LAs with lower proportions of SIMD areas, including the Islands and more rural LAs, tend to have higher proportions of the school roll in receipt of FSM. The final column of the table shows the difference between the proportion of school roll on FSM and the estimated proportion in SIMD20 areas, ordered from greatest to least.

Source: School Healthy Living Survey statistics 2022 and NRS’s Mid-Year population estimates 2021

https://www.gov.scot/publications/school-healthy-living-survey-statistics-2022/pages/1/

https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/statistics-and-data/statistics/statistics-by-theme/population/population-estimates/2011-based-special-area-population-estimates/population-estimates-by-simd-2016

Advantages and limitations of FSMs as a widening access measure

Advantages:

• FSM data has been captured and analysed by SG analysts for a number of years and may have greater quality than newer datasets such as the SCP.
• Recurrent data collection and historical data available.
• FSM is understood by the public as a result of the previous two points. As such, this could support understanding of contextual admissions if including FSM as a metric of deprivation.
• Similar metrics are used as a measure in the rest of the UK to identify those in deprivation (with different eligibility criteria).

Limitations:

• Data reflects registrations for FSM and not eligibility for it. This could mean that young people who do not access FSM are missed out.
• Cultural and social issues, such as stigma, may lead to lower uptake of FSM, meaning available data on FSM recipients does not include all those who are eligible.
• May disadvantage small cohorts e.g. those who are home schooled.
• Extended eligibility criteria used in some local authorities, including the use of school discretion, can have an impact on data quality and comparisons across LAs.
• Data sharing is complex as data is collected by each individual local authority.
• Policy for FSM has been changing recently. As such, we need to consider how changes to the eligibility criteria and delivery of FSM will impact data quality.

Legal gateway and implementation

Having considered existing legislation relating to education in Scotland, there appears to be no obvious legal gateway by which FSM data could be shared between SG and UCAS/universities.

If pursued, it is possible that primary legislation may be needed to provide the powers necessary to share this data. Work would need to be carried out to establish when this could be scheduled. As well as establishing the legal gateway for accessing data – i.e. the legal powers enabling SG or any other public body to share or access data – any data being shared would require a legal basis under GDPR (The Data Protection Act 2018) – i.e. the lawful basis through which one processes data.

Minimising the number of parties who have access to data is key to successfully setting up data sharing agreements (DSAs) and to justifying the legal basis under GDPR.

It may be that SG acting as an intermediary for any data – e.g. between the 32 LAs and UCAS (which UCAS have advised would be preferable and is in line with the approach in other UK nations) – is deemed unnecessary or disproportionate. A more direct route would be for LAs to share the data directly with UCAS, therefore reducing the number of parties accessing the data. If SG did not act as an intermediary then there would be an increased burden on LAs and UCAS in processing and quality assuring the data. Further exploration would be required to determine what would be deemed appropriate.

Conclusion and recommendations

• FSM data continues to be suitable for use as a widening access measure as over half of those in receipt of FSM are not located within SIMD deprived areas. This measure would therefore expand the evidence base for universities in making contextualised decisions about these pupils.
• Further exploration of the legalities and practicalities is required if this data is to be implemented. SG officials will continue to explore this and update the SLWG as appropriate.