Is household income a reliable measure when assessing educational outcomes? A Jigsaw of two datasets (Next Steps and National Pupil Database) for understanding indicators of disadvantage

Abstract

Robust indicators are important for identifying young people at risk of not meeting expected achievement goals in education, and for ensuring that they are rightly receiving relevant state-funded assistance. This paper compares the quality and completeness of data from England on student eligibility for free school meals (FSM) based on an administrative census, with more all-encompassing household income measures, from a smaller sample of young people. The first measure comes from the National Pupil Database (NPD), and the second from Next Steps (NS). The two datasets are linked here at the individual student level. In this restricted group, FSM data is much more complete (97%) than household income (47%), and so has less potential for bias. The bias created by missing data on income in Next Steps calls into question its more general usefulness for analysts. FSM cannot be read neatly from income, such as referring to an income below a certain level, and vice versa. Many reportedly low-income children are not listed as FSM-eligible, for example. However, the two values are linked, while each also provides unique information. Both measures predict attainment at school, to some extent. Household income is seemingly better than FSM for predicting student total point scores at Key Stage 4, in some respects. The paper concludes that FSM is the more practical measure at present, but also considers how access to limited income data could be made more widespread while maintaining individual data rights.