A THEMATIC REVIEW OF LITERATURE ON THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HOUSING, NEIGHBOURHOODS
AND SCHOOLS
Scottish Government
Communities Analytical Services
September 2010
Analytical Paper Series
1
CONTENTS
SUMMARY…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….3
SECTION
ONE:
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………………………….........................4
SECTION TWO: POLICY BACKGROUND…………………………………………………………………………………………..5
SECTION
THREE:
SOCIAL
EXCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………..8
SECTION
FOUR:
AREA/NEIGHBOURHOOD
EFFECTS………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………..…10
SECTION FIVE: LINKS BETWEEN HOUSING AND EDUCATION: SOME INTERNATIONAL
COMPARISONS……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………12
SECTION SIX: CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………………………………….25
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..28
2
SUMMARY
General
 There are complex links between housing and education; however, disentangling the
relationship between them is difficult. Neither housing nor education operates in
discrete ways, and each is affected by a range of other cross-cutting areas such as
health, transport, employment, crime and antisocial behaviour, as well as the state of
the economy, political decisions and the allocation of resources.
 Neighbourhood and housing characteristics, including tenure and conditions, can impact
on children’s and young people’s educational development and outcomes in a number
of complex and interrelated ways.
 Unstable housing results in very negative outcomes for children and young people.
 Moreover, the relationship is two way and can result in cyclical and inter-generational
disadvantage, since educational failure is likely to reduce employability and lead
ultimately to sustained residence in poorer areas with poorer housing in adulthood.
Area/Neighbourhood Effects
 A large body of evidence highlights the existence of various area effects across a range
of spheres including education, crime, health and unemployment.
 The least advantaged neighbourhoods are populated by the least advantaged people.
 Researchers need to work more closely to measure the neighbourhood problem,
incorporating both place and people to improve area targeted policies and to consider
their value to addressing disadvantage at key stages of the life cycle.
 Research consistently suggests that where people live matters, especially in relation to
housing quality, provision of neighbourhood services and outcomes, including
educational attainment.
Housing and School Based Education in Scotland
 A large proportion of children in Scotland are affected by either overcrowding (around
82,000 children) or homelessness (around 22,000 children).
 Evidence suggests that both overcrowding and homelessness impact in a particularly
negative way on children’s educational performance, as well as on their physical and
psychological health and life chances.
 Changes to children’s patterns of mobility resulting from exclusion or from being looked
after can place them at particular risk of educational failure. Evidence shows that
children who have been looked after have poorer educational outcomes than their nonlooked after peers. Exclusion can result in movement between schools, whilst change of
carers in different locations (which often results in interrupted schooling) is often a
feature of being looked after away from home.
 Gender emerges as a prominent variable in the links between housing and education,
with boys particularly affected by parental home ownership status and overcrowding.
 There has been limited research on the impact of schools on house prices, though this is
difficult to measure with any degree of confidence.
 Some research highlights the importance of school catchment areas which can result in
unequal access to better quality education.
3
INTRODUCTION
1.1
This paper presents a brief discussion of the relationship between housing and
education. Given the immense breadth and scope of both of these areas, it has not been
possible to produce anything approximating an exhaustive review of research, nor to adopt
a meta-analytical approach. Rather, the search parameters were guided by strict time
constraints, which limited the scope considerably and determined the method. The research
method involved numerous combinations of search terms using web-based search engines
and the University of Leeds portal to identify literature and access electronic journals in
housing studies, as well as searches of UK government websites for policy documents and to
identify relevant research at the UK and Scotland level; and, where available, international
research.
1.2
The Scottish Government has several broad housing concerns. These include
housing supply, housing investment, social housing, the housing market, housing access
and housing support, and improving the quality of housing. Similarly, concerns around
education are extensive, including early education and childcare, schools, universities and
colleges, skills and lifelong learning, and work based training. This paper focuses on several
areas of concern in housing and their relationship to one discreet area in education: schoolbased education. This area was selected because there are a large proportion of
households that contain children, and schooling is compulsory for children aged 5 - 16. An
examination of the relationship between housing and school-based education is therefore
likely to proffer some useful insights for policy makers to reflect upon. Some discussion of
international experience is presented where evidence is readily accessible, drawing on the
US and Scandinavia.
1.3
It should be remembered however, that in drawing international comparisons,
different countries have different concentrations of social and private sector housing and
different ideologies which support the development of these, as well as different education
systems and different policy priorities in education. The paper therefore has limitations, but
its aim is to encourage reflection on the relationship between housing and education in
Scotland.
1.4
Housing is about far more than bricks and mortar. It comprises homes in
neighbourhoods whose characteristics can affect people’s life chances and outcomes in
many ways, including health, education and access to wider resources. Housing then,
comprises much more than physical shelter, encompassing “a complex bundle of
considerations, including privacy, location, environmental amenities, symbolic
characteristics, and investment” (Foley, 1980). Indeed, housing can contribute to a range of
societal outcomes that go beyond providing shelter (Lubell and Brennan, 2007).
1.5
There are complex links between housing and other areas of social life. These
warrant further investigation to develop improved understandings of the way that
respective policies can develop more symbiotic relationships to improve people’s lives.
Whilst the focus of this paper concerns housing, neighbourhoods and education,
disentangling the complex relationships between each of these is difficult. None of these
4
spheres operates in discrete ways, and each is affected by a range of other cross cutting
areas such as health, transport, employment, crime and antisocial behaviour.
1.6
In education, school achievement is one of the main areas to have attracted
increasing policy and research attention, whilst housing and regeneration has also drawn
considerable policy focus. The relationship between housing and education has attracted
less attention however, though these are important dimensions of contemporary concerns
around social stability and exclusion in neighbourhoods (Croft, 2004), not least from the
perspective of the Scottish Government. Many of the Scottish Government’s purpose
targets aim to enhance people’s lives through improvements to housing, education and a
range of other spheres. Indeed, it is important to recognise that policies in “notionally
different areas – including housing, crime, health or education – can work towards the same
goal, often through cross-departmental and area based initiatives” (Marsh, 2004:16).
1.7
It has long been recognised that both school and non-school factors affect children’s
educational attainment. Identifying these has been a perennial concern to sociologists of
education, educators and policy makers alike (Sparkes and Glennerster, 2002). Some
researchers suggest that non-school factors are more important than school factors in
determining educational outcomes (cf. Bramley and Karley, 2007). These include, for
example, the impact of gender, parental income and social class, ethnicity, level of parental
interest and support for education, housing conditions, with poverty positioned as a
particularly crucial factor. By contrast, school factors include the quality of teaching and
teaching facilities, school resources, and the ethos and management of the school. Housing
can impact on either sphere, including the neighbourhood dimension which also feeds into
the quality, reputation and ethos of schools in particular areas.
SECTION ONE: POLICY BACKGROUND
2.1
The Scottish Government’s purpose is to focus government and public services on
creating a more successful country, with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish,
through increasing sustainable economic growth. There are a range of purpose targets and
national outcomes which housing and education policies can contribute towards. These
include tackling the significant inequalities in Scottish society; improving the life chances for
children, young people and families at risk; that children have the best start in life and are
ready to succeed; that people are better educated, more skilled and more successful; that
young people are successful learners, confident individuals, effective contributors and
responsible citizens. In addition, that people live in well-designed, sustainable places where
they are able to access the amenities and services they need, and that there is support for
strong, resilient and supportive communities where people take responsibility for their own
actions and how these affect others. Each of these is intended to go some way towards
achieving the strategic objectives which underpin the Scottish Government’s purpose of
working towards a smarter, wealthier and fairer, and safer and stronger Scotland.
2.2
There are various policy documents and reforms in education and in housing which
have relevance to this discussion. In education, A Curriculum for Excellence (2004) has been
designed to focus all planned learning both within and outwith schools for all children and
5
young people aged 3-18, and represents the biggest educational reform since the
introduction of the 5-14 programme. The intended purpose of the Curriculum is to enable
each child or young person to be a successful learner, a confident individual, a responsible
citizen and an effective contributor. In the context of this discussion, the most important
dimensions of Curriculum for Excellence include raising standards of educational
achievement and equipping young people with skills for learning, skills for life and skills for
work, raising literacy and numeracy standards, and ensuring that the educational system
provides additional support to enable children to achieve their full potential. This discussion
explains that housing may have a considerable role to play in some of these areas.
2.3
Getting it Right for Every Child (2008a) is a programme that aims to improve
outcomes for all children and young people. It is the foundation for work with children and
young people, including adult services where parents are involved. Building on universal
health and education services, it is embedded in the developing early years and youth
frameworks. Developments in the universal services of health and education, such as Better
Health Better Care (2007a) as well as the Curriculum for Excellence (2004) have identified
what the government believes needs to be done in those particular areas to improve
outcomes for children.
2.4
In housing, Firm Foundations (Scottish Government, 2007b) set out the Scottish
Government’s vision for the future of housing and regeneration in Scotland, and is currently
under review. The vision of Firm Foundations focused on the following areas:




Increased supply across all tenures
Greater choice and affordability for those on low incomes
Creation of sustainable and mixed communities
Better value social housing
2.5
In Firm Foundations, the Scottish Government highlighted its intention to locate high
quality housing in mixed communities to create positive and diverse neighbourhoods as part
of its plan for well designed and sustainable places. It pledged to develop a housing policy
which would support sustainable economic growth through working with local authorities,
developers and builders to increase the rate of new housing. The report was also clear that
increasing the supply of good quality, affordable housing would meet the current and future
needs of Scotland, allowing labour to move effectively and creating sustainable, mixed
communities in which people can live full and productive lives. Action to address the
regeneration of some of Scotland's most deprived areas was also highlighted, a well as
preventing homelessness by working with local government to ensure that all
unintentionally homeless households have an entitlement to settled accommodation by
2012.
2.6
The Scottish Government’s National Performance framework underpins an approach
to partnership working across government and public services.
The Framework
complements the Early Years Framework (2009a), and Equally Well (2008b), which form a
coherent approach to addressing disadvantage in Scotland. Achieving our Potential (2008c)
sets out the government’s framework approach to tackling poverty, including long term
measures to tackle this and the drivers of low income, such as providing young people with
6
the best start in life. The report draws attention to several key areas that need to be
addressed to break the inter-generational cycle of poverty. These include focussing on
particular drivers of policy, including inequalities in attainment of children and young people
in Scotland, and the lack of good quality, accessible and affordable housing – particularly,
within more deprived areas. To deliver good quality affordable housing for all, the Scottish
Government aims to implement the approach set out in Responding to the Changing
Economic Climate: Further Action on Housing (2008d) through a range of measures including
affordable housing investment, exempting new social housing from the right to buy,
increasing finances for the Low Cost Initiative for First-Time Buyers (LIFT), funding the
provision of debt advice and the home owner support fund.
2.7
Poverty is a feature of contemporary Scotland, and is primarily an urban phenomena
in terms of extent and intensity (Johnstone and McWilliams, 2005:159), though it is
increasingly recognised that that there are significant levels of poverty in rural areas
(Scottish Government, 2009). For example, in 2007/08, 18 percent of individuals in urban
areas were in relative poverty (before housing costs); whilst in rural areas the figure was 14
percent (Scottish Government Statistics1).
2.8
The most common poverty measure used by the UK and Scottish governments is
relative poverty (before housing costs) which is based on the proportion of households with
incomes falling below a certain threshold. This type of poverty is rare in ‘owner with
mortgage’ households, but is most prevalent amongst social renters and households which
are owned outright2. Much political and policy attention has been directed towards the
problem of poverty in West Central Scotland, where Glasgow and its environs have some of
the highest levels of poverty in Scotland and the rest of the UK (other areas such as Dundee
also have high poverty rates). The proportion of working-age people in receipt of out-ofwork benefits is more than twice as high in Glasgow, but also Inverclyde and West
Dunbartonshire, than in some other parts of Scotland (The Poverty Site, 2010). Similarly,
Glasgow evidences the lowest employment rate in Scotland (DWP, 2007), with 45% of the
5% most deprived areas in Scotland also in Glasgow (Scottish Government, 2009b).
2.9
The Scottish Government is committed to the social regeneration of deprived
communities. Action targeted at regenerating communities includes supporting the six
Urban Regeneration Companies (URC) throughout Scotland to help transform the most
deprived areas, and to lead improvements in employability, educational attainment,
community safety and health in those areas. In addition, £435 million has been committed
through the Fairer Scotland Fund (of which around one third of this is allocated to Glasgow)
to assist people living in poverty, tackle high levels of multiple deprivation and overcome
barriers to work; and £30 million of Wider Role funding supporting the work of Registered
Social Landlords to reduce poverty and financial exclusion in communities.
1
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Social-Welfare/IncomePoverty/CoreAnalysis
The poverty measure which is used here is based on income and does not include assets. Many of these poor
homeowners are pensioners.
2
7
SECTION TWO: SOCIAL EXCLUSION
3.1
From a policy perspective, social exclusion is a useful way of understanding and
unpacking the relationship between housing and education - or more precisely, between
poor housing and poor educational achievement - since the concept has a multidimensional
character. New Labour adopted the concept as part of its third way policy agenda,
establishing a Social Exclusion Unit (now a Taskforce) to co-ordinate efforts towards ‘joined
up solutions to joined up problems’. The concept has both a dynamic and relational
dimension (Byrne, 2005:2), which draws attention to the diverse and interconnected
problems that particular groups of people experience. Social exclusion therefore, cannot be
reduced to one single cause, but is the result of the relationship between various factors.
3.2
The previous administration had been criticised for focusing on physical aspects of
regeneration and ignoring its social dimensions. Thus urban policies and policies more
generally, were directed towards so-called marginalised communities (cf. Johnstone and
McWilliams, 2005). More recently, emphasis has shifted to a return to neighbourhood and
communities in urban/area based social policy. However, there is no longer a focus on long
term structural inequalities; rather concerns centre on what is perceived to be these
communities lack of connectedness to processes of economic growth.
3.3
Percy-Smith (2002) has discussed the multi-dimensional character of social exclusion.
One of these dimensions relates specifically to neighbourhood. The other dimensions
include the social (problems such as crime, homelessness and disaffected youth); the
political (the ability to participate in or influence decision-making, disempowerment, lack of
political rights, alienation from and lack of confidence in political processes); the economic
(poverty and access to labour market, including long-term unemployment, workless
households, and income poverty); individual level exclusion (the impact on individuals, for
example, mental and physical ill-health, educational under-achievement); spatial exclusion
(the concentration and marginalisation of vulnerable groups); and that which occurs at
group level (the concentration of indicators of social exclusion in particular groups, such as
the elderly, disabled and ethnic minorities). Multidimensionality is thus a key element in
the definition of social exclusion, where disadvantage in relation to one aspect of life is
linked to disadvantage in other areas, predisposing individuals, households and
neighbourhoods to become socially excluded.
3.4
In policy terms, the complexity of social exclusion as a phenomenon requires
complex interventions and therefore complex evaluation frameworks which take account of
the need to examine outcomes not only for individuals, but also for households,
communities, localities and regions. Furthermore, complex policy interventions entail
multiple stakeholders who may hold different views as to what would constitute a
successful outcome of a policy intervention. Since social exclusion is multidimensional it has
implications for a wide range of agencies and organisations. The need for holistic, joined-up
partnership and multi-agency responses to social exclusion is important. The partnership
approach is also intended to open the way for “policy innovation [to] overcome the
compartmentalisation of policy issues inside the domains of separate agencies [and to]
facilitate new alliances and ways of understanding and reacting to problems” (1997: 22).
8
The neighbourhood dimension of social exclusion
3.5
Analysis of the neighbourhood dimension of social exclusion is clearly related to both
social and spatial aspects. At the neighbourhood level, the indicators of social exclusion
might include environmental degradation, a decaying housing stock, the withdrawal of local
services (e.g. shops, public transport), increasingly overstretched public services such as
schools, and the collapse of local support networks (related to the political aspects of social
exclusion, namely low levels of participation in community and voluntary activities) (PercySmith, 2002).
3.6
In contrast to the largely uncritical and wholesale introduction of the concept to
policy circles, social exclusion is very much a contested concept in academia, criticised
primarily for its theoretical imprecision which “allows policy makers to refer to rather vague
causal mechanisms or social processes to justify actions and interventions” (Marsh, 2004:7).
Marsh, a vocal critic of social exclusion, has explored its link to housing in the English
context, questioning its utility in explaining and understanding social disadvantage.
3.7
According to Anderson (2000, 17-18 in Marsh, 2004), housing professionals
immediately embraced the language of inclusion and exclusion, hardly surprisingly since
New Labour policies were to be underpinned by this dual conception. However, as Marsh is
keen to highlight, “framing problems in the language of social exclusion cannot be assumed
to assist the social scientific analysis of disadvantage” (Marsh, 2004: 9). Marsh has
suggested that housing policy and housing organisations may have less of a role to play in
combating social exclusion than is often suggested. For example, that building social capital
in neighbourhoods is not really about housing at all, thus there is a danger of overstating the
role of the housing system in causing disadvantage, thereby overestimating the impact that
changes in housing policy can have.
3.8
Marsh also draws attention to the government’s preoccupation with social housing
in its thinking about socially excluded neighbourhoods. Undoubtedly, residents of social
housing experience a broad range of problems related to poverty and adverse housing
conditions. However, the emphasis on the experiences of this group alone risks overlooking
or downplaying the significant problems of those living in the private sector. For Marsh
there are indeed problems of housing related disadvantage, which impacts on other areas of
life, but framing these as social exclusion is not helpful. Moreover, Marsh questions what it
would mean to be included in housing terms.
3.9
For Marsh, if all of the housing related topics that government recognises as
associated with social exclusion are to be accepted, the difficulty in seeing social exclusion
as a coherent concept increases. Marsh is not arguing that housing does not play a key role
in creating and potentially addressing aspects of disadvantage, but that social exclusion
itself, as a concept and focus of government, does not develop understandings of
disadvantage. Likewise, he presents a range of other terms in housing which are similarly
unclear: social inclusion, social cohesion, community cohesion, balanced communities, and
sustainable communities (2004: 920). What has happened is that social exclusion has been
used to replace any concern with inequality and redistribution, focussing instead on
9
individuals’ connections to paid forms of employment and ‘community’, with income no
longer considered central to explaining disadvantage. A vast body of literature explores this
in depth, particularly that concerned with explaining crime. It is therefore noteworthy that
the SNP led government has attempted to shift the emphasis, through the Solidarity target
for example, back to income equality.
SECTION THREE: AREA/NEIGHBOURHOOD EFFECTS
4.1
A large number of UK studies provide evidence of the existence of various area
effects across diverse fields including employment, education, crime and health, as well as
the recognition that neighbourhood effects act to compound problems of social exclusion or
disadvantage (e.g. Atkinson and Kintrea, 2001; Forrest and Kearns, 2001; Burgess et al,
2001; Lupton, 2003). Indeed, a recent Scottish Government analytical paper has argued that
that neighbourhood effects do exist and have a role in shaping residents’ opportunities and
life-courses, even if they cannot be directly linked to life outcomes in empirical studies
(Communities Analytical Servicers, 2010).
4.2
Lupton and Power (2002) have shown that through processes of economic decline
and neighbourhood sorting, the least advantaged areas become populated by the least
advantaged people. Concentrating the disadvantaged together in the least favourable
circumstances has various consequences, including limiting access to good quality schooling,
thus affecting children’s chances of succeeding across a range of educational measures.
4.3
Lupton (2003) provides a lucid account of the benefits of research on neighbourhood
effects, a topic with particular resonance for understanding the relationship between
housing and education. Research interest in disadvantaged neighbourhoods includes
qualitative community studies and quantitative investigations of area effects on individual
outcomes. Lupton recommends multi-disciplinary work to develop studies that can
influence the design of specific programmes. Neighbourhood based policy in England has
expanded following the establishment of a Neighbourhood Renewal Unit, the formation of
Local Strategic Partnerships and area-based initiatives, including the New Deal for
Communities area regeneration programme, Action Zones for health, education and
employment, and area-targeted programmes such as Excellence in Cities and Sure Start in
England.
4.4
Lupton urges qualitative researchers to collaborate more critically with quantitative
colleagues to ensure that neighbourhood effects research is theoretically informed and thus
reliable in its findings. Neighbourhoods are complex conceptualisations which quantitative
research – by itself - tends to miss out on. Crucially, the concept of neighbourhood
incorporates both place and people; neighbourhoods are not fixed, and cannot be seen in
isolation. Thus,
“[Q]uantitative studies need to be sufficiently sophisticated to measure the
complexity of the neighbourhood phenomenon, otherwise they are at risk of
pronouncing that there are no neighbourhood effects simply because they have not
been able to measure them” (p.12)
10
4.5
The main justification for the importance of area effects research is that it provides
evidence about whether or not to pursue area-targeted policies. Although there is now less
emphasis in Britain on area based initiatives, policy has entered another phase, embodied in
the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal (there is no Scottish equivalent). This
focuses on the mainstreaming of funding and partnership working over the longer term, and
on reducing neighbourhood segregation through housing policy and urban revitalisation.
Nevertheless, additional efforts and funds are still directed at the poorest local authorities
and at neighbourhoods within the top 10% on the Index of Multiple Deprivation. Lupton
observes that:
‘Both phases of policy have been accompanied by a persistent refrain that it matters
where you live. Living in a poor neighbourhood is assumed to confer additional
disadvantages for individuals for many reasons: poor services and facilities, poor
housing and environment, high crime, and high levels of worklessness creating low
aspiration and under-achievement.’ (p.18)
4.6
McCulloch argues that “the underlying rationale of area-based policies is that
concentrations of deprivation give rise to problems greater than the sum of the parts”
(2001: p667) and that if it were demonstrated that neighbourhood problems were
attributable to compositional effects only, “people rather than areas should be targeted”
(p668). Knowing the strength of area effects appears to be central to policy. Indeed, the
case for further area effects research is compelling, albeit research which is underpinned by
improved, sophisticated and combined methodologies.
4.7
Lupton insists that researchers should continue to measure area effects, and that
quantitative area effects research potentially has a key policy role in a specific, rather than a
general sense. Specific research could be valuable in informing which area-based policies
are most worthwhile and how they should be implemented. Knowledge about who is
affected by area, at what point in the life course, and how much, is potentially important.
For example, knowing the extent to which poor housing impacts on educational attainment
for children of different ages would help to determine better family housing policy and
intervention at the right stages with compensatory educational measures.
4.8
Other researchers have highlighted similar concerns, such as Bramley and Karley
(2007), who have examined school and neighbourhood effects, providing a critical account
of poor neighbourhoods served by poorer schools (measured in terms of levels of
attainment). The relationship between neighbourhood and schooling is therefore crucial
and can reinforce disadvantage. Examining the role of home ownership alongside other
factors, such as poverty, they argue that home ownership has an additional effect on school
attainment which goes beyond that explained by poverty, though there is some ambiguity
regarding how separate school and neighbourhood effects are.
11
SECTION FOUR: LINKS BETWEEN HOUSING AND EDUCATION: SOME INTERNATIONAL
COMPARISONS
5.1
The links between neighbourhood factors and their effects on individual and
household outcomes, such as education, continues to exercise academics and policy makers
across the international spectrum, including the Australian Housing and Urban Research
Institute, where a useful review of studies in this area has recently been completed
(Atkinson, 2008). Examining a large body of research, Atkinson explored a range of
outcomes linked to differing types and extents of social concentration and deprivation in
neighbourhood settings. Overall, research has reported negative effects on individuals and
households in relation to a number of variables, including education, health, crime and
employment, though the linkages between neighbourhoods and these are complex. A key
finding of the research is that area effects generated by living in poor areas affects the
quality and availability of essential public services like education and health. Similarly, a
European study on neighbourhood effects and youth educational achievement in the
Netherlands found a significant relationship between these, with low socio-economic status
a particularly salient factor. However, like much of the research in this field, they caution
that, “we cannot be sure that the association between neighbourhood conditions and youth
achievement are the result of neighbourhood factors or of the differential selection of youth
and their families into certain neighbourhoods” (Sykes and Kuyper, 2009:2432).
5.2
The Center for Housing Policy in the US is a research body which examines the policy
intersections between housing and other areas. Whilst the education systems in the US and
UK are not directly comparable, the similarities outweigh the differences, particularly in
relation to the fact that most schooling is provided by the public sector, is universally
available, and school attendance is compulsory for young children from around the age of
five to up to around age 18 at high school (though this varies by state). Contemporary
research on the relationship between housing and education in the US then, clearly has
considerable salience to other countries with education systems characterised by these
features.
5.3
A wide range of US research highlights the importance of stable and supportive
home environments for children’s educational outcomes, together with the role that
teachers play (Lubell and Brennan, 2007), thus both school and non-school factors are
considered crucial. Lubell and Brennan, in a review of US literature on housing and
education, have identified seven ways in which affordable housing may exert a stronger
impact on children’s educational outcomes. These include stability factors, such as avoiding
mobility between schools, which can occur as a result of moving home; the provision of
housing subsidies to enable families to move and participate in communities with stronger
school systems; the reduction of overcrowding, since this can impact negatively on
education; the provision of well constructed and well maintained housing to avoid health
risks; developing a holistic community process that includes new or improved schools;
encouraging home ownership, and finally, reducing homelessness. Each of these is dealt
with in further detail below, punctuated by analogous discussion in the UK context where
evidence was found to be available.
12
Stable and Affordable Housing
5.4
Many studies highlight the negative impact of frequent moves (or mobility) on
children’s educational achievement. Lubell and Brennan contend however, that whilst there
is evidence that affordable housing can reduce the frequency of moves, further research on
mobility and educational achievement is required. What is clear is that residential mobility
(Scanlon and Devine, 2001) and school mobility (Mehana and Reynolds, 2004) affect
children in various ways, from disruption to study, and/or having to adapt to a different
curriculum, and adapting to the standards and values of the new school. Furthermore, when
both moves occur simultaneously – school and home - the negative impact of enhanced
mobility may be more accentuated, though it is possible that some of the effects could be
due to pre-existing, pre-move factors which exist amongst particular children and young
people (Pribesh and Downey 1999; Temple and Reynolds 1999). Additionally, peer
relationships and social networks can be disrupted due to moving. Peer relationships and
social networks may support learning, though the converse may also apply where such
networks do not support a culture of learning, for example, through association with
delinquent sub-groups. Many studies have not assessed the impact of school and residential
mobility separately. Of those that have, findings indicate similar impacts for school
changers and residential movers, with the impact intensified when school and residential
mobility are combined (Pribesh and Downey 1999; Swanson and Schneider 1999).
5.5
Moving home does not always result in lower educational achievement, however;
rather the negative impact arises from moves which are not consciously chosen, such as
moves resulting from housing problems or household instability. Some US focussed
research, for example, has found that evictions, the poor quality of low-cost housing stock,
and the availability of affordable homes were perceived by school administrators in New
York as major causes of school mobility (Schafft (2002); whilst Bartlett’s (1997) research
found that stable, affordable housing was one of the only factors capable of stabilising the
residential mobility patterns of poorer mothers in Brattleboro, Vermont.
Stable and Affordable Housing in the UK
5.6
The preceding discussion indicates that residential stability is important because
moving schools can impair educational progress. Similarly, Shelter have expressed
considerable concern about the effects of living in temporary accommodation, and have
pointed to clear links between poor housing, educational attainment and life chances. This
is discussed further in the section on homelessness.
5.7
The economic downturn impacted on the UK housing market in several key ways.
These include falling house prices; falling land prices and a reduction in overall housing
activity; increasing numbers of repossessions, and reduced mortgage lending. Evidence
suggests that the Scottish housing market experienced a significant slowdown with
widespread economic and social consequences (cf. SPICe, 2009). One of the consequences
of the subsequent public spending squeeze may well be a reduction in the numbers of new
build affordable homes than originally envisaged. It is therefore likely that this factor,
together with households who face repossession in the current climate, may adversely
13
impact on the educational development of children in these households, due to household
debt and disruption to schooling where they may have to move.
Housing Subsidies
5.8
Lubell and Brennan (2007) stress the importance of neighbourhood for enhancing
children’s educational outcomes, a factor confirmed in a considerable body of research.
Higher quality neighbourhoods – such as those featuring lower levels of crime, better
community resources and ties – generally attain better educational outcomes. However,
sustaining families’ moves to better neighbourhoods is difficult. That is, households who
have moved to a better neighbourhood may eventually move back to a neighbourhood with
a poverty rate similar to or even worse than the one that they originally left. This had been
found, for example, amongst some families who had participated in a ‘Moving to
Opportunity’ project in Chicago (p.8).
5.9
Jacob’s (2004) study on households affected by the demolition of high rises in
Chicago found that forced relocations together with voucher assistance for housing had not
improved young children’s educational outcomes because there had been no corresponding
effort to move the households to better neighbourhoods or better schools.
Affordable Housing to Reduce Overcrowding
5.10 Overcrowding has a negative impact on both educational and developmental
outcomes. Braconi’s (2001) study of overcrowding, using data from the New York City
Housing and Vacancy Survey has drawn attention to gender differentials in the years of high
school education completed. Although overcrowding was found to have impacted on both
boys and girls, boys fared less well in such conditions. Conley’s (2001) findings similarly
highlighted the relationship between overcrowding and reduced years of completed
schooling:
Children who lived in crowded conditions (on average) for the entire period
completed almost a quarter year less schooling than those who lived in more
spacious conditions (p. 274).
5.11 The detrimental effects of overcrowding on younger children has also been
reported; once again, the gender dimension is palpable. Evans et al (1998) reviewed the
overcrowding literature and found that boys aged between one to three evidenced
cognitive delays, whilst children of primary school age suffered in the development of
specific skills like reading, as well as overcrowding impacting on school based behaviour.
5.12 Clearly, affordable housing has a significant role to play in the reduction of
overcrowding. A study by Mills et al (2006), for example, reported that housing vouchers
played an important role in helping households with affordability and thus offsetting
overcrowding (reducing the tendency for families to double up). However, as Lubell and
Brennan (2007) note, the exact mechanisms through which overcrowding negatively
impacts on educational achievement are ambiguous. One reason might be that
overcrowding affects the quality of parent-child relationships (Evans et al, 1998), and/or
14
children are unable to access private space, which is important for a variety of reasons
including doing homework (Braconi, 2001). Evans, Saltzman, and Cooperman (2001) suggest
that household chaos, which results from overcrowding and poor housing quality, may be
the mechanism through which poor quality housing affects children.
Overcrowding in the UK
5.13 In the UK, dwelling size is defined by the number of bedrooms. Lack of space has
been recognised as a hazard linked to health outcomes, including childhood development
(Ambrose and Farrell, 2009:110), which can correspondingly impact on educational
performance and outcomes. Recent research on the effects of overcrowding on children
(Ambrose and Farrell, 2009) has explored its adverse effects through a range of methods,
including a survey of a small sample of households in South London where pressure for
housing is intense, using case studies and interviews with primary school children. The
research drew on a range of accounts from local people as ‘alternative experts’ (p.31), who
had been affected by overcrowding. One community worker in the study summed up the
features of overcrowding that she had witnessed as follows:
It is commonplace for a living room to be used as a bedroom – which the council
apparently finds perfectly acceptable; several people were often sleeping in one
room on mattresses on the floor, there were no tables for people to eat from, or for
the children to do homework, no privacy, rooms were in need of serious repairs,
there was a significant problem of damp and mould which leads to frequent health
problems (p. 13)
5.14 Parents also provided negative accounts of the effects of overcrowding on their
children:
The children have no space to play, to eat properly or do their homework – and they
can’t bring their friends home. My oldest boy who is 12, has to leave home at six in
the morning to go to school to do his homework, even in the winter. They open the
school especially for him and other children who have to live like this. But we are
afraid for him, going out to school so early in the morning and in the dark, especially
at winter (p.19).
5.15 Comments from children consistently described their experience of overcrowding in
such terms as ‘squashed’, and also noted sensory and emotive aspects such as ‘noisiness’
and ‘tension’ (p.20). Household comments on the impact of lack of space affecting
children’s work focussed on such factors as inadequate surfaces to work on, and lack of
quiet spaces; household tensions related to overcrowding which affect children’s
concentration and emotions, and the difficulty sleeping when sharing bedrooms with older
siblings. Housing our Future (2009) found that overcrowding is something which affects the
lives of children and families quite considerably, and described this as a symptom of
pressure on housing supply, with insufficient affordable homes available.
15
5.16 According to Shelter (2006), 8% of children living in substandard accommodation
lose out on a quarter of their schooling. Specifically, this can be linked to overcrowding
where, as noted above, space for homework is lacking, and/or living in cold and damp
conditions, makes completion of homework less likely, as well as exacerbating health
problems. Poor housing is also associated with lower literacy rates and low respect for
education. Shelter have therefore called for more study support and after school clubs.
5.17 Shelter’s State of the Nation Report (2006) draws attention to the effects of
overcrowding on children, including their education. Research by the Housing Corporation
is included in their report, which suggests that over a quarter of school children lack
sufficient space at home in which to do their homework (ibid, 2006).
5.18 The Scottish House Condition Survey (2008) is a representative sample for Scotland
and records 255,000 people living in overcrowded conditions (comprising 67,000
households in Scotland). This includes 27,000 children under the age of 5 (8.1% of the
Scottish population in this age range ), and 55,000 of children from age 6 to 17 (7.3% of the
population in this age range). These figures indicate that a very large proportion of children
in Scotland are affected by homelessness and overcrowding, whilst the evidence on the
relationship between poor or unstable housing and education indicates quite strongly that
educational outcomes are likely to be poorer for those affected by either of these situations.
Well Constructed and Maintained Affordable Housing
5.19 Asthma can severely affect educational outcomes through prolonged or sporadic
periods of illness and absence from school (Williamson et al, 1997; Prakash and Goldstein,
2002). Some research also associates the illness with poor quality housing (Kinney et al,
2002; Rothstein, 2004; cf. Wiltshire internal Scottish Government paper ‘Health and
Housing’, 2010). Moreover, childhood asthma which is particularly pronounced at night
time can affect children’s educational performance by lowering levels of attention at school
due to tiredness. Lubell and Brennan (2007) recommend housing programmes which
promote higher quality maintenance and management to reduce not only the health risks of
asthma, but levels of accidents such as burns and falls.
5.20 The presence of lead in housing also confers health risks, though this tends to be a
problem of older housing. This can cause impaired cognitive development of children
(Center for Disease Control and Prevention 2005). Affordable housing that helps households
move to new homes or nullifies localised lead problems can eliminate this risk.
5.21 The Scottish Government recognises that quality housing is necessary for good
physical and mental health. The Scottish Housing Quality Standard (SHQS) is the principal
means by which housing quality is measured, using five criteria which a dwelling must
possess in order to meet its requirements. Scotland’s objective in this respect is that all
social housing should meet the SHQS criteria by 2015. Overall failure rates in the socially
rented stock have fallen from 77% in 2002 to 60% in 2005-6, which means there remains
room for considerable progress, particularly in meeting the energy efficiency criteria
(DEFRA, 2008: 17). Moreover, the Scottish House Condition Survey reports very high levels
16
of ‘disrepair’, especially for older dwellings, and amongst a greater proportion of social
sector dwellings than the private sector3 (Scottish Government, 2008e: 36).
5.22 The former UK government’s A New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal:
National Strategy Action Plan (Social Exclusion Unit, 2001) is viewed as a central focus for
addressing multiple aspects of deprivation experienced in the poorest areas. A recent
review of this strategy stated that poor quality housing, badly maintained local
environments, problems with antisocial behaviour and crime and disorder, including drug
and alcohol misuse, can cause instability in many deprived areas (Strategy Unit, 2005),
including poor educational outcomes.
Affordable Housing and Educational Developments
5.23 There is competing evidence about the extent to which after school programmes
exert a positive impact on educational outcomes. James-Burdumy et al (2005), for example,
failed to find any educational benefits from their review of 34 programmes for primary aged
children, whilst other research has reported the opposite (Miller 2003; Afterschool Alliance,
2006). The success of such programmes depends very much on what is being measured,
and may include a combination of factors including programme quality, the experience and
commitment of staff, levels of resourcing, and levels of interest, motivation and
commitment by participating children. Aside from more direct educational benefits, there
are other important advantages of such programmes which may be considered successful.
These include facilitating opportunities for informal socialisation, play and group activities,
and in providing places of safety and supervision for children.
5.24 The success of programmes may also be affected by their location, that is, whether
they are schools’ based or based more locally such as in affordable housing developments.
Residential based programmes offer a number of advantages over schools including
offsetting transport problems for parents collecting children; convenience, due to their
closer proximity to homes; and for their informal surveillance and guardianship capacities,
such as keeping children away from the temptations of activities associated with delinquent
sub-groups. Lubell and Brennan (2007) suggest that by linking affordable housing with
higher quality schools (new schools or improvements to schools), affordable housing
development communities can improve educational opportunities in two ways. Firstly, by
providing better schooling for low income families, and secondly, on the assumption that
better schools may attract middle income families to live in the area, thus going some way
towards enhancing social mix.
Promoting Homeownership
5.25 Some studies indicate that the children of homeowners perform better at school.
Haurin, Parcel, and Haurin (2001) for example, found quite significant differences in levels of
3
Around three quarters (77%) of private sector dwellings have some form of disrepair, compared to 83% of
dwellings in the social sector. This is in contrast to the proportion of dwellings failing the SHQS in both the
social and the private housing sectors which has decreased from 75% in 2004/5 to 66% of dwellings in the
private sector and 61% in the social sector failing the SHQS in 2008.
17
children’s attainment. Other studies have found that the children of homeowners have
higher graduation rates, and stay in school longer than those living in other tenures
(Aaronson, 2000; Green and White, 1997). Importantly and in terms of income, Newman
and Harkness (2002) found a correlation between homeownership and educational
achievement amongst the children of households with incomes below the poverty line,
though not for higher income families. Gender was also prominent in Braconi’s (2001) study,
with boys from homeowner households more likely to graduate.
5.26 Home ownership may provide educational benefits because of the strength of
stability factors associated with this tenure. For Lubell and Brennan (2007), if stability is an
important factor then affordable housing might make a real difference to educational
outcomes, through subsidies and eviction programmes, for example. Crucially however,
they caution that:
To the extent that a neighborhood [sic] has poor quality schools, or other adverse
conditions, homeownership and other forms of residentially stable housing in that
neighbourhood may have a negative effect by locking families into a poor-quality
neighborhood (p.16).
Promoting Home Ownership in the UK
5.27 Repossession can exacerbate any inequalities which households are facing, such as
increasing poverty and social exclusion through loss of a home. The credit boom which
preceded the economic downturn allowed for the advancement of larger mortgages relative
to income, together with an increase in lending to those with poorer credit histories. In the
current climate, this means that there are likely to be many mortgage holders who are
particularly vulnerable to risk and who will fall into considerable arrears. A proportion of
these will be at serious risk of, or subject to, repossession, which will impact negatively and
severely on children’s educational development where they are part of such households.
5.28 Despite this recent trend, much US literature has consistently stressed the positive
relationship between housing tenure, especially home ownership, and educational
attainment. Moreover, UK governments, as elsewhere in the developed world, have
retained their commitment to encouraging home ownership. Home ownership is assumed
to be influential because of its association with better housing conditions, household
stability and its effect on social capital, affecting people’s attitudes, behaviours and
outcomes. In Scotland, the Scottish Household Survey reports on the composition of
households. The 2007 data indicated that 31% of households owned their property outright
(mostly households with at least one pensioner), 35% held a mortgage, and the remainder
were divided between the private (10%) and the social rental sector (22%). In remote rural
areas almost half of homes are owned outright – more than in any other type of area
(Scottish Government, 2008f:5). There are then, a large proportion of homeowners and
owner with mortgage households in Scotland, but it is not at all clear whether children from
such households are likely to perform better at school, and there has been limited attempts
to measure this.
18
5.29 Bramley and Karley (2007) set out to examine the proposition that home ownership,
which arguably fosters such outcomes as enhanced levels of neighbourhood social capital,
can improve educational attainment. Testing this through an analysis of school attainment
outcomes in England and Scotland, they drew on national pupil databases linked to Census
data and other data on schools and neighbourhoods. They found a degree of support for the
hypothesis that home ownership can improve educational attainment at both primary and
secondary levels in England. In Scotland, the effect was mainly concentrated at the small
neighbourhood level. However, they argued that a stronger test of the hypothesis is
required in order to establish whether schools with more homeowner children help all their
pupils do better, including children from non home owning families.
5.30 Bramley and Karley (2007) have also explored the significance of educational failure
(in terms of overall achievement) and its relationship to social exclusion, with exclusion
meaning financial exclusion and exclusion from community networks. Home ownership is
associated with financial inclusion. Haurin et al (2002) maintain that it is the financial stake
in a property and neighbourhood which directs a greater motivation to regulate the
behaviour of children, which suggests in other words, a link between finances and what is
perceived as good parenting. Bramley and Karley (2007) however, suggest there are other
reasons why home ownership might be associated with better educational outcomes, and
that what home ownership is really about is income and wealth, a driver of educational
success. They pose an interesting policy question – whether households with relatively poor
or middling economic circumstances would benefit from opportunities to enter owner
occupation, and whether their children would thereby achieve more at school (p. 698).
However, this seems grossly simplistic and ignores the complex interplay of numerous other
variables referred to in this discussion, not least the impact of affordability and housing
stress on educational development and outcomes.
School Catchments
5.31 Croft (2004) has drawn attention to unequal access to quality education which is a
critical dimension of access to or exclusion from a knowledge based economy; and that
access to over-subscribed schools can be determined by the ability to afford housing within
particular areas. In a review of research on the relationship between school choice and
housing decisions, she focused on the question of how seriously school choice interacts with
neighbourhood composition. Croft highlights a policy problem which emerges from school
catchment areas:
There is a popular perception that some parents do move purposefully into the
‘catchment areas’ of popular schools. This implies that there are areas which,
equally, are avoided by movers, perpetuating divisions between schools’ intakes, and
this is theoretically a policy problematic for a number of interrelated reasons, the
reasons being that advantage and disadvantage become concentrated, with the
latter contributing to poorer educational performance and outcomes (2004: 927).
19
5.32 The Neighbourhood Renewal Agenda in England seeks to improve this by tackling so
called poor schools (cf. Croft, 2004). Parents can exercise choice in relation to schooling,
though local authorities have to balance this with the requirement to use resources
efficiently. Some schools are oversubscribed and have to use prioritisation strategies, thus
catchment areas can therefore exclude pupils due to their residential location. There is also
the additional ‘choice’ of privately funded education for parents who have sufficient income
to act as ultimate choice led consumers in the market, with 7% of pupils in England
attending these (DfES, 2002), and 4.31% in Scotland (Scottish Government, 2008g).
5.33 There are a number of factors which affect parental decisions, to greater or lesser
degrees, on school selection. These are made on the basis of what Croft describes as “local
and contextual policy, information, misunderstanding and myth” (2004: 935). These include
such aspects as knowledge of the options available, geographical access, reputation and
status, league tables’ performance, and ethnic mix (cf. Croft, 2004). It has also been
suggested that choice can involve demonising (Reay and Lucey, 2000), or ‘othering’
particular schools, where choice is more determined by the rejection of other schools which
can end up being residualised. So-called ‘grapevine knowledge’ is also thought to inform
choice (Taylor, 2002:168). Adler et al (1989) found that in Scotland, the avoidance of
particular schools often drove requests for alternative allocations. False addresses are an
additional and persistent problem for over-subscribed schools, a practice where households
present false information to local authorities in order to secure a place at their school of
choice, without actually moving to the relevant neighbourhood.
5.34 There is also some research which shows that the child’s choice is an important
variable in determining school choice (cf. Taylor, 2002). Gorard (1997) and Taylor (2002)
have both drawn attention to the differences between social classes in this respect with
middle class parents allowing limited choice and working class children allowed a more
decisive choice, which as Croft (2004) conjectures, may be a result of the powerlessness that
working class parents have in selecting better schools because of where they live. Informed
by relevant research she notes that:
Some data suggests that children reject secondary schools which they think they
cannot have . . . [T]his mirrors findings in studies of low income families, where
children’s aspirations are found to be quickly limited . . . (p.935).
5.35 Croft suggests that although choice of school matters to parents, this may well be
driven by concerns about different factors. Moreover, housing and education market
conditions limit the amount of choice available to many households. Neighbourhood and
area of residence are therefore crucial factors underpinning the ability to exercise or limit
educational choice.
20
5.36 Comparative research conducted in the Netherlands, France and Britain underscores
the relationship between school choice and social segregation which can arise as a result of
this. Again, this highlights that where people live matters:
Educational choice clearly is not the only, or even principal, source of social
segregation in European education. Neighbourhood schools in urban areas replicate
class differences in residential patterns . . . It seems clear . . . that educational choice
intensifies the existing social bias by creating new opportunities for better informed
parents to move their children to the best schools (Ambler, 19994, p.373 in Croft,
2004, p. 941).
5.37 School is not a response category in the Survey of English Housing, nor does the
Housing Attitudes Survey allow for identification of schooling as a driver for moving home,
thus its significance for some groups may be concealed in general analyses of residential
mobility. However, according to the Scottish Household Survey, only 10% of the entire
sample in 1999-2000 identified ‘Good local schools' as an aspect of their neighbourhood
which they particularly liked, and surveys in subsequent years have revealed similar levels.
Conversely, hardly any of the sample - 1% consistently across subsequent years - identified
‘Poor local schools' as an aspect of their neighbourhood which they particularly disliked.
Neighbourhood likes tended to focus on such aspects of neighbourhood as ‘quiet/peaceful’;
‘convenient shop/other amenities’; ‘good neighbours’ and ‘friendly people’. Dislikes
oscillated around such factors as ‘young people hanging about/nothing for young people to
do’; ‘vandalism and graffiti’ and ‘parking problems’ (Scottish Government, 2008f).
Impact of Schools on House Prices
5.38 It is difficult to gauge the impact of particular schools on house prices because there
are a range of other factors and influences to consider, such as availability of facilities and
the amount of accessible green space in particular areas, which may act as pull factors to
those considering moving. In economics, hedonic pricing models assume that the price of a
marketed good is based on the characteristics of the good or the services it provides. The
price of a house is thus thought to reflect the characteristics of both the house and its
location. Hedonic pricing models estimate a statistical relationship between these
characteristics and price. However, such models have acknowledged weaknesses such as
where it is difficult to place a numerical value on characteristics and the choice of the
appropriate degree of spatial disaggregation for neighbourhood characteristics. Literature in
the US has examined the relationship between particular schools and house prices to a far
greater extent than in the UK and does indicate some impact of the most sought after
schools on house prices (Haurin and Brasington, 1996; Brasington, 1999). Croft’s review of
literature in this field has found some impact; notably certain areas in Coventry, England,
have increased house prices due to the location of popular schools, whilst a study by
Gibbons and Machin (2003) also evidenced some relationship.
21
Reducing Homelessness
5.39 Homeless children can be an extremely mobile population, thereby encountering a
range of schooling barriers. Jozefowicz-Simbeni and Israel (2006) have summarised several
key barriers to educational success which result from homelessness, including:
lack of transportation, residency restrictions, lack of personal and school records,
guardianship problems, and a lack of resources such as clothing and school supplies
(Rafferty, 1995; U.S. Department of Education, 2001; Wall, 1996). . . [In addition]
academically, homeless and runaway students face increased risk of school dropout,
grade retention, low test scores, low grades, educational disabilities, and school
behaviour problems (p.37).
5.40 Younger homeless children are also disadvantaged in terms of access to pre-school
education. Indeed, Lubell and Brennan (2007) have emphasised the difficulties that
homeless parents experience in progressing their child’s enrolment in pre-school education
due to providers’ waiting lists and area preferences. They suggest that affordable housing
can mitigate against homelessness and the significant educational disadvantage that this
confers.
Homelessness and Education in the UK
5.41 An earlier UK report, Prevention is Better than Cure (Randall and Brown, 1999)
surveyed the experience of homelessness and rough sleeping. The report highlighted the
importance of schooling, since being excluded from school is one of the key triggers to
homelessness. Rough sleepers often have a history of disrupted and poor quality education
which results in few, if any qualifications, and unemployment. One of the report’s
recommendations was to encourage schools to teach about homelessness in order to
prepare young people for leaving home and thus help to prevent homelessness. Shelter also
prepares guides for schools to help prepare young people for leaving home. Local education
authorities and schools occupy a prime position to help mitigate homelessness and rough
sleeping amongst young people who may be at risk of this. The development of a
partnership approach with various statutory and voluntary bodies, in particular working
with local authority housing departments, may prove an effective way to offset
homelessness in at risk schools’ based groups. Prevention is Better than Cure recommended
that schools play a role in sustaining young people in their current homes, rather than
encouraging early independence (ibid, p.33).
5.42 Randall and Brown (1999) also identified being thrown out of school as a key 'trigger'
to homelessness. Children who have been excluded from school are 90 times more likely to
end up living on the streets than those who stay on and pass exams. More than a quarter of
those interviewed who were living rough had been excluded from school and 62% had no
educational qualifications. Moreover, one third of those living on the streets are from a care
background (State of the Nation, 2006).
22
5.43 Subsequent research by Shelter in 2001-02, found that the lack of permanent
accommodation severely affected almost every aspect of children’s lives, from schooling to
health. The resulting report, Where is Home?, presented findings which showed that
children in two-fifths of the families they studied were forced to move schools when they
became homeless, and over half of those were bullied for having no friends. Many missed
out on school or lagged behind because they did not have anywhere to do their homework.
Their health also suffered due to insanitary living conditions and overcrowding - one family
of six, for example, shared a single room. Children also suffered from a poor diet due to lack
of cooking facilities.
5.44 60,000 households (excluding the intentionally homeless) were officially recognised
as newly homeless by local authorities in England in 2009. Just under half of these
households contain dependent children. In Scotland, the total number of households newly
recognised as homeless rose substantially in the period from 2000/01 to 2003/04, from
33,000 in 2000/01 to 43,000 in 2003/04. Since then, the numbers have fallen slightly.
Three-fifths of those officially recognised as homeless are single adults with no dependent
children, the majority being aged 25 or over, whilst most of the others are lone parents (The
Poverty Site, 2010). As at 31 March 2008, there were around 9,500 homeless households
placed in temporary accommodation by their local authority in Scotland.
5.45 It is difficult to establish the precise number of homeless children in Scotland due to
the complex and broad ways in which homelessness can be defined4. However, according
to Crisis, the charity for single homeless people, two-fifths of homeless households in
temporary accommodation have dependent children (Crisis, 2010), whilst Shelter estimate
that 60 children a day become homeless somewhere in Scotland, a total of 22,000 children a
year, with nearly half under the age of 5 (Shelter, 2010). Quarterly local authority data on
homelessness received by the Scottish Government indicates that out of 41,914 local
authority applications assessed as homeless in 2008/09, 13,660 were households with
children. The total number of children in these households was 21,868. However, due to
the fact that these figures may involve an element of double counting (with a small number
of households applying more than once in the year), the total number of homeless children
is estimated at 21,729. Glasgow City has the greatest number of homeless applications as
well as the largest number of homeless children (3731), followed by Edinburgh (2307),
North Lanarkshire (1878), and South Lanarkshire (1569), with almost half aged under 4
years. Since there are also many homeless families who are not visible in the statistics,
figures are likely to exceed these. This represents a considerable problem, since as the
evidence shows, unstable housing has negative consequences on children’s life chances and
outcomes, including education and health.
5.46 The Scottish Government introduced legislation (The Homeless Persons (Unsuitable
Accommodation) (Scotland) Order 2004) which sets standards that temporary
accommodation provided for homeless households with children or pregnant women must
meet (unless exceptional circumstances as defined in the Order apply). These standards
include the requirement that temporary accommodation must be suitable for children, must
4
For example, being homeless can include those households living in unsuitable accommodation, including
overcrowding, ‘sofa surfers’ and rough sleepers.
23
meet physical standards and must have accessible health and education services nearby,
such as additional support for learning.
5.47 All unintentionally homeless households will be entitled to settled accommodation
by 2012. The Scottish Government recognises that homelessness restricts opportunities for
employment or training and that it has adverse impacts on health. Furthermore, it
recognises that quality housing is necessary for good physical and mental health, that
homelessness is best tackled through partnership working to meet the 2012 target, and that
quality, affordable, accessible and sustainable housing needs to be delivered across all
tenures.
Children in Care and Education
5.48 There are over 15,000 looked-after children in Scotland, a figure which has been
increasing and at its highest level since 1983 (Scottish Government, 2010). Most do not
perform well in education and need help to escape the problems that resulted in their care
in the first place. Statistics show that 75% of looked-after children in Scotland leave school
without qualifications. Whilst they comprise around 1% of the school population, last year
they accounted for 8% of exclusions, albeit a fall of 5% from the previous year. Detailed data
on the educational attainment of looked after children in Scotland is incomplete. However,
the information available suggests that looked after children have much lower average tariff
scores than those not looked after5 (Scottish Government, 2009c).
5.49 Looked after children and young people live in a variety of residential settings
including at home with birth parent[s], friends and relatives, foster care, residential units,
residential schools, or secure accommodation. A 1998 review of children in care revealed
that many have frequent changes of school and find themselves in care environments
where education is not greatly valued. A lack of clarity between professionals adds to the
confusion (Learning in Care Report, 2001).
5.50 The more recent Scottish Government report Looked After Children and Young
People: we can and must do better confirms that the living environment has a direct bearing
on educational outcomes (Scottish Government, 2007). In large part, this is because living in
high risk households, with chaotic parental lifestyles and problems of substance misuse, for
example, has particularly poor consequences for children. Movement between homes
(placement moves) is also likely to impact on educational outcomes, and especially where
this involves changing school[s]. As part of the report, children and young people were
given an opportunity to voice their experiences and concerns. Some highlighted the
negative consequences of moving to either a new home and/ or community, with one
young person complaining that “You get stuck with a family you don’t know in a new town.”
The report also detailed concerns about young people once they reached aged 16, the age
of leaving care. Young people said that they were worried they would be offered poor
5
The tariff score of a pupil is calculated by allocating a score to each level of qualification and award, using the
Unified Points Score scale. For example, a Standard Grade at level 1 counts as 38 points and at level 4 counts as
14 points. The Unified Points Score Scale is an extended version of the Universities and Colleges Admissions
Service ( UCAS) Scottish Tariff points system.
24
housing in disadvantaged areas; and in particular urged that bed and breakfast
accommodation be stopped.
The Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2009 (and which amends the
2004 Act of the same name) which is due to be commenced later this year deems all looked
after children and young people to have additional support needs unless the education
authority determines that they do not require additional support.
Truancy and Exclusion from School
5.51 Keeping pupils included, engaged and involved in their education, thereby helping to
prevent truancy and reduce the need for exclusion, is an important part of the government's
social inclusion policy. Young people who attend school regularly are more likely to achieve
their potential, and less likely to take part in anti-social or criminal behaviour. There is some
evidence that poor literacy is, in some cases, a causal factor.
5.52 The Prince's Trust (2002) conducted research with children who had been excluded
from school and found that such children had tended to experience intermittent foster care
or movement between parents, frequently changed schools, were unable to catch up or
make friends and started to truant, usually because they disliked a teacher. Some found the
transition from primary to secondary school especially difficult, anxious that secondary
classes would be larger, and that teachers might be less friendly. Whilst most recognised
that school was not a waste of time, they were unsure of the qualifications they needed to
gain the jobs they want.
5.53 The report also indicated that excluded children are much more likely than others to
come from single-parent families. Only one in four lived with both parents, compared with
three in five of their non-excluded peers. Most excluded children in the research claimed
their parents expressed little interest in their homework and rarely attended parent-teacher
evenings. Only half recalled being praised by their parents, compared with two-thirds of
their non-excluded peers. Excluded children were twice as likely to say they had never been
disciplined at home. A quarter had a statement of special educational needs and a further
quarter were being assessed for one.
5.54 The research also included care leavers and found that over half of these had been
both temporarily and permanently excluded from school. A third felt inadequately equipped
to live independently, their main difficulties being managing their finances and coping with
loneliness. 77% had basic skills needs, and 29% were unemployed. However, they were
generally positive about their lives when they had a place to call their own, and also valued
the support and advice of mentors.
5.55 Educational outcomes for children and young people in care are generally poor,
partly as a result of school and/or residential mobility, though a variety of other factors are
also implicated. There is also evidence that being in care and exclusion from school are
related, with school exclusion correlated with lower levels of educational attainment. Thus,
25
the insecure housing of children and young people in care, due to frequent movement,
often results in poorer educational outcomes.
CONCLUSION
5.56 This paper has explored the relationship between housing, neighbourhoods and
school-based education. The relationships are complex, difficult to untangle and
compounded by the interplay of many other factors like health, social class and parental
income. In addition, the negative impact of the current economic difficulties, which are
palpable across wider society, have particularly affected the housing market in Scotland - as
elsewhere - which complicates the relationship further. Whilst a range of housing,
neighbourhood, and education policies have been developed and implemented in Scotland,
ultimately working towards the Scottish Government’s aim of a smarter, wealthier and
fairer, safer and stronger country, research in these areas suggests that this task is by no
means straightforward. It is difficult to isolate and identify the causal factors in housing and
neighbourhoods which may directly or indirectly facilitate or impede educational
attainment; nor is the direction of causation certain. This is clearly a problem for a
government concerned with a ‘what works’ agenda.
5.57 The research does indicate however, tangible relationships and affects at various
levels between housing, neighbourhood and school-based education. In broad terms, the
research shows that where people lives matters and that unstable housing results in very
negative outcomes for children and young people, notwithstanding the effects this induces
in other household members. Instability is overwhelmingly a problem of finances where
families are unable to afford housing costs, which has intimate links to the influence of
other spheres like employment levels and the state of the wider economy. Ultimately this
can result in the adverse effects of overcrowding, and also homelessness. In addition, there
are likely to be many households with children who are currently struggling to maintain
housing costs, which has negative economic and social effects on household members
including their children. How many this affects is currently unknown (other than those who
have thus far made use of the Homeowners Support Fund) though once interest rates begin
to rise again, this is likely to become more apparent and pronounced.
5.58 Poor quality housing has been identified as exerting a negative impact on
educational performance, whether this is through its association with poor health, such
factors as lack of privacy and study space, or because at the neighbourhood level poorer
neighbourhoods tend to have poorer housing and schools which do not have successful
outcomes for pupils. Poor neighbourhoods themselves suffer from a whole gamut of
problems, and often contain schools which are struggling to cope with the range of
problems their pupils present, some of whom go on become regular truants and/or are
formally excluded. This behaviour and the consequences of such behaviour not only
mitigates against educational success, but can lead to involvement in antisocial and criminal
activities, and homelessness. The provision of more affordable and good quality housing has
to continue to be a priority for the Scottish Government if it wishes to make real progress
towards tackling the significant inequalities in Scottish society, though achieving this aim is
not merely a goal of housing or of education but a broader cross policy task. Indeed,
26
achieving this aim might be less difficult were policy proofing afforded greater attention
from the outset by both government and policy makers to facilitate the mapping of
pathways and links between policies in seemingly discrete areas.
5.59 What can be learned from the international research, and the wider UK, is that there
is significant interest in exploring the policy intersections across the different social arenas
which characterise these different societies, including housing and education; and that
different areas need to work collaboratively towards the same goals. Research thus seeks to
identify and highlight the way that particular spheres impact on children’s and young
people’s lives. Scotland then, is grappling with the same issues in housing and education as
elsewhere in developed countries, in a particularly challenging economic climate.
Dr Susan Wiltshire
Housing Research
27
REFERENCES
Aaronson, D, (2000) A Note on the Benefits of Homeownership. Journal of Urban Economics
47(3): 356-369.
Adler, M., Petch, A. & Tweedie, J. (1989) Parental Choice and Education Policy (Edinburgh,
Edinburgh University Press).
Afterschool Alliance (2006) Evaluations Backgrounder: A Summary of Formal Evaluations of
the Academic Impact of Afterschool Programs. Washington, DC: Author.
Alcock, P. (2006)(3rd edn.) Understanding Poverty, London: Palgrave.
Alexander, R (eds) (2009) Children, their World, their Education: final report and
recommendations of the Cambridge Primary Review, Routledge, October 2009.
http://www.primaryreview.org.uk/Downloads/Finalreport/Routledge_leaflet.pdf
(accessed 10/02/10)
Ambler, J. (1994) Who benefits from educational choice: Some evidence from Europe,
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 13 (3), pp. 454–476.
Ambrose, P and Farrell, B (2009) Housing our Future: Report on an enquiry into the effects
of overcrowding in children, South London Citizens, December 2009.
Anderson, I (2000) ‘Housing and social exclusion: the changing debate’ in I Anderson and D
Sim (eds) Social Exclusion and Housing: Contexts and Challenges, Coventry, Chartered
Institute of Housing.
Atkinson, R. & Kintrea, K. (2001) Disentangling area effects: evidence from deprived and
non-deprived neighbourhoods, Urban Studies, 38(12), pp. 2277–2298.
Atkinson, R and Kintrea, K (2000) Owner Occupation, social mix and neighbourhood impacts,
Policy and Politics, 28 (1), 93-108.
Atkinson, R and Kintrea, K (2002) ‘Area effects: what do they mean for British housing and
regeneration policy?’ European Journal of Housing Policy, 2 (2), 147-166.
Atkinson, R. (2008) Housing policies, social mix and community outcomes, Australian
Housing and Urban Research Institute, Report number 122.
Bartlett, Sheridan (1997) The Significance of Relocation for Chronically Poor Families in the
USA.
Environment
and
Urbanization
9(1):
121-131.
http://eau.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/9/1/121.pdf (accessed 29/01 2010).
Berridge, D. et al (2001) The Independent Effects of Permanent Exclusion from School on the
Offending
Careers
of
Young
People,
London:
Home
Office
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/occ71-exclusion.pdf
Braconi, F (2001) Housing and Schooling. The Urban Prospect. New York, NY: Citizen’s
Housing and Planning Council.
Bramley, G and Karley, N (2007) ‘Homeownership, poverty and educational achievement:
School effects as neighbourhood effects’ Housing Studies, 22:5, 693-721.
Brasington, D. (1999) Which measures of school quality does the housing market value?
Journal of Real Estate Research, 18 (3), pp. 395–414.
Burgess, S., Gardiner, K. & Propper, C. (2001) Growing Up: School, Family and Area
Influences on Adolescents’ Later Life Chances. CASE Paper 49 (London: London School of
Economics).
Byrne, D (2005) Social Exclusion, Open University Press.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2005. Third National Report on Human
Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human
Services.
28
Conley, Dalton (2001) A Room with a View or a Room of One’s Own? Housing and Social
Stratification. Sociological Forum 16(2): 263-280.
Crisis, 2010 Homelessness Statistics
http://www.crisis.org.uk/policywatch/pages/scotland_trends_over_time.html
Croft, J (2004) ‘Positive choice, no choice or total rejection: the perennial problem of school
catchments, housing and neighbourhoods’, Housing Studies, 19:6, 927-965.
DEFRA (2008) The UK Fuel Poverty Strategy, 6th Annual Progress Report. London:
Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file48036.pdf
(accessed 13/01/2010)
Department for Education and Skills (2002) Statistics of education: schools in England,
London, The Stationary Office.
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Housing and
integration of Migrants in Europe (2007).
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2007/94/en/1/ef0794en.pdf
Department for Work and Pensions (2007) Scotland: Employment and Prosperity
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/scotland-employment-and-prosperity.pdf
Evans, Gary W., Stephen J. Lepore, B.R. Shejwal, and M.N. Palsane (1998) Chronic
Residential Crowding and Children’s Well-Being: An Ecological Perspective. Child
Development 69(6): 1514-1523.
Evans, Gary W., Heidi Saltzman, and Jana L. Cooperman (2001) Housing Quality and
Children’s Socioemotional Health. Environment and Behavior 33(3): 389-399.
Foley, D (1980) The Sociology of Housing, Annual Review of Sociology, 6:457-78.
Forrest, R and Kearns, A 2001 ‘Social Cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood’ Urban
Studies, 38 (12), 2125-2143.
Geddes MN (2001) Social exclusion and local partnership in the European Union. Social
Exclusion and Local Partnership in the European Union. Ed. Geddes M and Benington J.
London: Routledge.
Gibbons, S. and S. Machin (2003) Valuing English primary schools, Journal of Urban
Economics, 53 (2): 197-219 March.
Gorard, S. (1997) School Choice in an Established Market (Aldershot, Ashgate Publishing).
Green, Richard K. and Michelle J. White (1997) Measuring the Benefits of Homeowning:
Effects on Children. Journal of Urban Economics 41: 441-461.
Haurin, D. and Brasington, D (1996) ‘School quality and real house prices: Inter- and
intrametropolitan effects’ Journal of Housing Economics, 5 pp.3 51-368.
Haurin, Donald R., Toby L. Parcel, and R. Jean Haurin (2001) The Impact of Homeownership
on Child Outcomes. Low Income Homeownership Working Paper Series. Joint Center for
Housing Studies, Harvard University.
Haurin, D. R., Parcel, T. L. & Haurin, R. J. (2002) Does homeownership affect child
outcomes?, Real Estate Economics, 30, pp. 635–666.
HM Inspectors of Schools and the Social Work Services Inspectorate (2001) Learning with
Care: The education of children looked after away from home by local authorities
http://www.hmie.gov.uk/documents/publication/lwc.html
(accessed 15/02/10)
29
Jacob, Brian A. (2004) Public Housing, Housing Vouchers, and Student Achievement:
Evidence from Public Housing Demolitions in Chicago. American Economic Review 94(1):
233-258.
James-Burdumy, Susanne, Mark Dynarski, Mary Moore, John Deke, Wendy Mansfield, Carol
Pistorino, and Elizabeth Warner (2005) When Schools Stay Open Late: The National
Evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program – Final Report.
Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. for the U.S. Department of Education.
Washington, DC. http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/cclcfinalreport/cclcfinal.pdf
Johnstone, C and McWilliams, C (2005) Urban policy and the city in the ‘new’ Scotland in
Exploring Social Policy in the ‘New’ Scotland, Mooney, G and Scott, G, Policy Press.
Jozefowicz-Simbeni, Debra M.H. and Nathaniel Israel (2006) Services to Homeless Students
and Families: The McKinney-Vento Act and Its Implications for School Social Work Practice.
Children & Schools 28(1): 37-44.
Kinney, Patrick L., Mary E. Northridge, Ginger L. Chew, Erik Gronning, Evelyn Joseph, Juan C.
Correa, Swati Prakash, and Inge Goldstein. (2002). On the Front Lines: An Environmental
Asthma Intervention in New York City. American Journal of Public Health 92(1): 24–26.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1447378
(accessed 26/02/10).
Lubell, J. and Brennan, M. (2007) Framing the Issues—the Positive Impacts of Affordable
Housing on Education Centre for Housing policy 2007.
http://www.nhc.org/pdf/chp_int_litrvw_hsgedu0707.pdf
(accessed 10 -12th February, 2010)
Lupton, D and Power, A. (2002) Social Exclusion and Neighbourhoods, in J. Hills et al (eds.)
Understanding Social Exclusion, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lupton, D (2003) 'Neighbourhood Effects': Can we measure them and does it matter?’
Ruth Lupton, November, Paper No' CASE 073.
Lupton, R. (2004) Schools in Disadvantaged Areas: Recognising Context and Raising Quality,
CASE Paper 76 (London: ESRC Research Centre Report).
Lupton, R. (2001) Improving schools in disadvantaged areas: Can standards improve without
changes in structure?, Local Economy, 16 (2), pp. 80–86.
Majida, M and Reynolds, A J. (2004) School Mobility and Achievement: A Meta-Analysis.
Children and Youth Services Review 26: 93-119.
Marsh, A (2004) ‘Housing and the Social Exclusion Agenda in England’ Australian Journal of
Social Issues, 39, 1 7-23.
McCulloch, A. (2001) ‘Ward-level deprivation and individual social and economic outcomes
in the British Household Panel Study’. Environment and Planning A, 33: 667-684.
Mehana, Majida and Arthur J. Reynolds. 2004. School Mobility and Achievement: A MetaAnalysis. Children and Youth Services Review 26: 93-119.
Miller, Beth M. (2003) Critical Hours: After-School Programs and Educational Success.
Quincy,
MA:
Nellie
Mae
Education
Foundation.
http://www.nmefdn.org/uploads/Critical_Hours_Full.pdf
(accessed 24/02/2010)
Mills, Gregory, Daniel Gubits, Larry Orr, David Long, Judie Feins, Bulbul Kaul, Michelle Wood,
Amy Jones & Associates (2006), Cloudburst Consulting, and QED Group LLC. Effects of
Housing Vouchers on Welfare Families. Prepared by Abt Associates, Inc., for the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and
Research.
30
MINISTRY OF REFUGEE, IMMIGRATION AND INTEGRATION AFFAIRS (2003) Cultural Diversity
in European Cities. Published by The Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration
Affairs
http://www.nyidanmark.dk/bibliotek/publikationer/rapporter/uk/cultural_diversity/index.h
tm)
(accessed 24/02 2010)
Newman, Sandra and Joseph Harkness (2002) The Long-Term Effects of Public Housing on
Self-Sufficiency [Discussion Draft]. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21(1): 21-43.
OECD (2000) Early Childhood Education and Care Policy in Finland Background report
prepared for the OECD Thematic Review of Early Childhood Education and Care Policy May
2000.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/55/2476019.pdf
OECD (2002) Glasgow: Lessons for innovation and implementation, Paris, OECD.
Percy-Smith, J. (2002) ‘Introduction: the contours of social exclusion’ ’, in J. Percy-Smith (ed.)
Policy Responses to Social Exclusion, Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Pribesh, Shana and Douglas B. Downey (1999) Why are Residential and School Moves
Associated with Poor School Performance? Demography 36(4): 521-534.
Princes Trust (2002) The Way It Is – School’s Outhttp://www.princestrust.org.uk/PDF/Princes%20Trust%20Research%20The%20Way%20it%20is%20apr02.pdf
(accessed 24/02/10)
Randall, G and Brown, S (1999) ‘Prevention is better than cure’ Crisis
http://www.crisis.org.uk/data/files/publications/PreventionIsBetterThanCure-ForWeb.pdf
Rautalin, M and Alasuutari, P (2009) The uses of the national PISA results by Finnish officials
in central government Journal of Education Policy, Vol. 24, No. 5, September 2009, 539–556
Rothstein, R. (2004) Class and the Classroom. American School Board Journal 191(10).
Reay, D. & Lucey, H. (2000) Children, school choice and school differences, Educational
Studies, 26 (1), pp. 83–100.
Scanlon, Edward and Kevin Devine. 2001. Residential Mobility and Youth Well-Being:
Research, Policy, and Practice Issues. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 28(1): 119-138.
Schafft, Kai A. August 2002. Low Income Student Transiency and Its Effects on Schools and
School Districts in Upstate New York: The Perspective of School District Administrators: A
Research Summary Report. Working Paper. Cornell University, Department of Rural
Sociology.
Scottish Government (2004) A Curriculum for Excellence
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/11/20178/45862
(accessed 12/3/10)
Scottish Government (2006) Class Sizes, Staffing and Resources Working Group: Interim
Report June 2006
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/132966/0031688.pdf
Scottish Government (2007a) Better Health, Better Care: Action Plan
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/12/11103453/0
(accessed 12/3/10)
Scottish Government (2007b) ‘Firm Foundations: The Future of Housing in Scotland’
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/10/30153156/0
(accessed 2/12/09)
Scottish Government (2008a) A Guide to Getting it Right for Every Child
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/09/22091734/0
31
(accessed 12/3/10)
Scottish Government (2008b) Equally Well: Report of the ministerial taskforce on health
equalities Volume 2
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/06/25104032/0
(accessed 3/2/10)
Scottish Government (2008c) Achieving Our Potential: A Framework to tackle poverty and
income inequality in Scotland
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/11/20103815/0
(accessed 3/2/10)
Scottish Government (2008d) Responding to the Changing Economic Climate - Further
Action on Housing
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-Environment/Housing/furtheraction
(accessed 11/3/10)
Scottish Government (2008e) Scottish House Condition Survey: Key Findings 2008
(accessed 12/3/10)
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/292876/0090383.pdf
(accessed 22/1/10)
Scottish Government (2008f) Headline Results from the 2007 Scottish Household Survey
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/226215/0061254.pdf
(accessed 22/1/10)
Scottish Government (2008g) Independent School Census
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/04/20113524/0
(accessed 12/3/10)
Scottish Government (2009a) Early Years Framework
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/01/13095148/5
Scottish Government (2009b) THE EXPERIENCE OF RURAL POVERTY IN SCOTLAND
Qualitative Research with Organisations Working with People Experiencing Poverty in Rural
Areas
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/262658/0078512.pdf
(accessed 21/04/10)
Scottish Government (2009c) Background Data 2009: Overall SIMD 2009 and individual
domains
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/SIMD/Background-Data-2009
(accessed 24/03/2010)
Scottish Government (2009d) Information on attainment of National Qualifications by pupils
in publicly funded secondaries and school leavers, March 2009
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/03/09154229/1
(accessed 12/3/10)
Scottish Government (2010) Children Looked After Statistics 2008-09
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/02/22133946/0
Shelter (2009) ‘Briefing Eviction of children and families: the impact and alternatives’ Shelter
Policy Library, Nov 2009 www.shelter.org.uk
Shelter (2010) The facts: bad housing and homelessness for children and young people in
Scotland 2010
32
http://scotland.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/policy_library/policy_library_folder/f
acts_report_2010
(accessed 15/02/10)
Social Exclusion Unit (2001). A new commitment to neighbourhood renewal: national
strategy action plan. London: Cabinet Office.
Sparkes, J. & Glennerster, H. (2002) Preventing social exclusion: education’s contribution, in:
J. Hills, J. Le Grand & D. Piachaud (Eds) Understanding Social Exclusion (Oxford: Oxford
University Press).
SPICe (2009) The Scottish Housing Market briefing, 21/01/09
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/research/briefings-09/SB09-05.pdf
Strategy Unit (2005). Improving the prospects of people living in areas of multiple
deprivation in England. London: Cabinet Office.
Swanson, Christopher B. and Barbara Schneider. 1999. Students on the Move: Residential
and Educational Mobility in America’s Schools. Sociology of Education 72(1): 54-67.
Sykes, B and Kuyper, H (2009) Neighbourhood effects on youth educational achievement in
the Netherlands: can effects be identified and do they vary by student background
characteristics? Environment and Planning, 41, pp 2417-2436.
Taylor, C. (2002) Geography of the ‘New’ Education Market: Secondary school choice in
England and Wales (Aldershot, Ashgate Publishing).
Temple, Judy A. and Arthur J. Reynolds. 1999. School Mobility and Achievement:
Longitudinal Findings from an Urban Cohort. Journal of School Psychology 37(4): 355-377.
The Poverty Site, 2010 Homelessness in Scotland
http://www.poverty.org.uk/s81/index.shtml
Williamson, I J; McGill g; Monie, R D and Fennerty, G (1997) ‘Damp Housing and Asthma: A
Case Control Study’. Thorax, 52:229-234.
33
34