Reading

In the policy evaluation regressions when we allow the policy effect to differ for the ‘poorer’ and ‘better off’ LEAs we found the effect on reading level 2B or higher was negative for the poorer LEAs, positive for the better off LEAs, though in neither case significant. Table 2.17 shows that the coefficients on take-up in the non-school sector, that is the ‘other’ sector, follow this same pattern as we would expect, however again neither effect is significant.

What we do find is that it is the poorer LEAs that are driving the result that increasing the take-up by 3-year olds of free early education places in maintained nursery and primary schools has a positive effect on achievement in reading at level 2B or higher, as Table 2.17 shows. The coefficient is still small at 0.059, implying that a 10%-point rise in the take-up rate of these places by 3-year olds in the poorer LEAs would lead to a 0.6%-point increase in the percentage of children achieving level 2B or higher at KS1 reading. The mean take-up of these places by 3-year olds in the poorer LEAs is 59.39% and the mean percentage of children achieving level 2B or higher in reading in these LEAs is 65.68% with a within standard deviation of 1.66. Therefore the effect of a 10%-point increase in take-up would be equivalent to an increase of approximately one-third of a within standard deviation for these LEAs. Appendix A.4 Table A.17 shows that this result is robust to the choice of sample, and the result is also robust to the exclusion of the childcare variables (see Appendix A.5, Table A.24).

As with the policy evaluation regressions, a further robustness check involves running the regression again but with the data from results year 2006 excluded. The assessment method for each of the subjects changed in 2006 hence the need to consider excluding 2006 as the results may be differentially biased in 2006, meaning that a dummy for 2006 would not control for this effect. Appendix A.6 Table A.30 reveals this result remains significant and robust to the choice of sample; indeed the coefficient increases slightly and is significant at the 1% level as opposed to just the 5% level, which is the significance level when we include 2006 data.

Turning to the effects at level 3 or higher, the marginally significant positive policy effect for the poorer LEAs that we found in Table 2.11 is not in evidence in Table 2.17 – we find the coefficient on ‘other’ sector take-up to be estimated to be zero to 3 decimal places.

However, we do see in Table 2.17 that there is some evidence that take-up of free early education places in maintained nursery and primary schools by 4-year olds in the better off LEAs, has a positive effect on the percentage of children in an LEA attaining level 3 or higher in their KS1 reading. The coefficient of 0.159 indicates that an increase in the 4-year olds take- up rate of these places in the better off LEAs is associated with a 1.59%-point increase in the percentage of children attaining level 3 or higher. To put this in context, the mean take-up rate of free places in the maintained nursery and primary schools by 4-year olds in these less deprived LEAs is 76.10%, and the mean percentage of children attaining level 3 or higher in these LEAs is 30.15% with a within standard deviation of 2.14. Therefore the effect of a 10%-point increase in take-up is approximately equal to an increase of just under three quarters of a within standard deviation.

Though this result is found in both of the balanced panel samples (see Appendix A.4 Table A.20), the level of significance increases to 10% in the second sample, and the result is not robust to unbalancing the panel (sample 3). When the childcare variables are excluded the result remains but only in the main sample (see Appendix A.5, Table A.27). As can be seen in Appendix A.6 Table A.33, when we exclude the 2006 data, this result becomes much stronger, becoming significant at the 1% level in both the main and second balanced panel samples.

It is notable that some of the variables that are included to control for selection into the group of LEAs who received the NEG for 3-year olds first, are significant in each regression. In the level 2B or higher regression the male economic inactivity rate amongst working age males is significant and negative in each sample, which is what we would expect to be the case – as the inactivity rate increases the results for children in these LEAs decrease. Similarly, there is

a negative coefficient on the proportion of men and women who are employed in manufacturing occupations for results at level 2B or higher. This again is the sign that we would perhaps expect – to the extent that manufacturing jobs capture socio-economic status of the LEA, as the proportion of manufacturing jobs increases we might expect that results would decrease.

In the regressions for level 3 or higher, the male economic inactivity rate is no longer signif- icant, and neither is the manufacturing jobs rate (which in the interest of parsimony is dropped from the specification). The median gross weekly pay of male workers is significant and had a positive effect, again as we would expect – as the pay of workers increases, the results of children in the LEA increase.

It is in line with what we would expect that factors contemporary to the time that the children take the test have a larger impact on results than factors from earlier in the lifetime of the children – and it is clear that average class size for KS1 classes seems to have a significant effect on results for reading at each level. As we would expect, as the average class size increases, results decrease: increasing the average class size by 1 child has the effect of decreasing the percentage of children attaining level 2B or higher by 0.67%-points and the percentage of children attaining level 3 or higher by 0.78%-points. As the mean percentage attaining level 2B across all LEAs is 68.83% with a within standard deviation of 1.70 and the corresponding figures for level 3 are 27.00% and 2.03, it is clear that even changing average class size has only a relatively small effect on results.