Much has been made of last week’s long-awaited levelling up White Paper. At over 300 pages, including a timeline on global cities going back to 7,000 BC, there was much to pour over.

But did it deliver on the detail from an education perspective?

Our new research - where we take an in-depth look at educational inequalities in England - provides a fresh, hard lens through which to consider the levelling-up debate, and that pose some questions about the impact it will actually have.

Educational inequalities are stark in England

First, it is worth taking a step back and considering the big picture. Our research confirms stark geographic disparities in educational outcomes across England.

Looking at GCSE gaps across local authorities in 2020, we see a gulf where the gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers is largest (in Knowsley, at 1.8 grades) and smallest (Kensington and Chelsea, 0.1 grades).

To put into context, this subnational difference is larger than the national gap that we see when comparing the GCSE grades of the poorest students in long-term poverty to their non-disadvantaged peers (at 1.6 grades).

Strong educational performance is not always equal

So the scale of the challenge and case for levelling up areas are clear, but how sensible is the government’s approach?

One-third of all local authorities in England - virtually all located outside the South East - have been designated as Education Investment Areas (EIAs).

These 55 “cold spots” will receive more government support aimed at achieving the national ambition of 90 per cent of Year 6 children meeting the expected standard in reading, writing and maths by 2030.

In 2019, just two-thirds reached this level.

But while this approach is clear and data-driven, it’s also partial. The selection of these areas is based on having below average overall attainment in Years 6 and 11.

This is problematic because any levelling up criteria focusing only on overall attainment risks missing out on areas where disadvantaged students do badly compared to their peers.

Some areas with average overall attainment, but very large disadvantage gaps, will have been overlooked.

In places such as Sheffield, Cheshire West and Chester, Herefordshire and North Tyneside, we see high disadvantage gaps (of at least 1.5 GCSE grades, in 2019 and 2020) but none of these has been selected among the government’s 55 EIAs.

Meanwhile, Luton - which performs considerably better for its disadvantaged pupils, with a gap of 1.1 GCSE grades - has made the cut.

Geographic inequalities are not static

Another limitation with a place-based approach informed by solely school data is that this entirely misses what’s happening at earlier and later stages of education.

And in doing so, risks failing to target resources effectively.

We know from our previous research that around 40 per cent of the disadvantage gap by age 16 has already emerged by the time children start school and that access to high-quality early years provision is key to mitigating this.

But other than some marginal funding increases for family hubs, the White Paper is a missed opportunity in providing additional early years support. 

Likewise, 16-19 education is, not for the first time, overshadowed by the (largely rehashed) handful of schools announcements. In some ways, the key announcement regarding ”opening new 16-19 free schools targeted in areas where they are most needed” is especially baffling.

With no 16-19 data used to select the areas for intervention, it is hard to know whether they are well-targeted or not. Our data shows that of the of 10 per cent of local authorities with the widest 16-19 disadvantage gaps in 2019 and 2020, almost half were not selected for levelling up support.

Barnsley and Stockton on Tees were amongst the local authorities with the widest gaps nationally, yet missed the cut. 

Consider their social determinants 

Our research also shows that disadvantage gaps are greatest in areas that have a large proportion of students in long-term poverty.

Taking this into account can considerably alter the geographic picture of inequalities.

When accounting for high rates of long-term poverty, many areas - such as Kirklees Sunderland, Halton, Tower Hamlets and Middlesbrough - all see large reductions in their GCSE grade gaps.

All of these local authorities have over half their disadvantaged pupil populations in long-term poverty - compared to around 40 per cent in England as a whole.

The takeaway, then, is that any levelling up agenda that promises to address geographic disparities must go hand-in-hand with government action to address underlying inequalities, such as poverty.

Our research is clear that this is a serious and growing problem.

The national disadvantage gap for students in long-term poverty has failed to narrow over the last decade. We are also seeing more students falling into long-term poverty.

Without a serious cross-government poverty reduction strategy for England and its regions, the White Paper’s ambitious, long-term aims will fall short.

Emily Hunt is associate director, social mobility and vulnerable learners at the Education Policy Institute