Blogs

Hidden disadvantage: Students living in rural poverty

Pupil Premium and disadvantage Narrowing the Gap Vulnerable children
Many assume that students living in rural areas perform well in their academic studies and yet rural poverty is rife and has a huge impact on outcomes. School leader Debbie Tremble considers the challenges
Rural poverty: There is a consistent pattern of lower percentages of FSM pupils in rural areas of England, such as the Lake District, achieving Grade 5 or higher in English and maths - Adobe Stock

It has long been perceived that students in rural areas achieve higher GCSE outcomes than their urban counterparts, largely due to the assumption that rural populations are generally more affluent.

However, data suggests a different reality for disadvantaged learners in rural areas. Luke Graham’s The Grass Ceiling (2023) highlights this disparity, arguing that the diverse socio-economic make-up of rural populations has obscured significant hidden disadvantages.

In reality, GCSE attainment for those students in receipt of free school meals (FSMs) is highest in urban areas like Birmingham and Wolverhampton.

Indeed, according to the Social Mobility Commission (2024), the West Midlands and the North West have “overtaken London as the region with the highest proportion of FSM pupils in their schools” and the West Midlands is seeing the “London effect”.

The commission also stated: “There is a fairly clear and consistent pattern for lower percentages of FSM-eligible pupils in rural areas of England, such as Cornwall and Cumbria, achieving passes (Grade 5 or higher) in English and maths. There is also a cluster of low performance in other areas of the North West, such as Lancashire and Cheshire.”

How is it that urban areas with higher-than-average disadvantaged students perform better at GCSE than their rural counterparts?

 

System leadership in urban areas

Academisation and the emergence of multi-academy trusts (MATs) or federations of schools over the last 10 years has meant that system leadership has become a prominent feature of education.

A key element of effective system leadership is the networking and sharing of good practice through bringing multiple schools together under one governance.

While the effectiveness of MATs varies of course, they can offer much-needed support for schools in need. However, many rural schools may not benefit from this system. Their location may make collaboration or sharing resources more challenging.

A research study (Cockerill et al, 2021) identified seven drivers for success with socio-economically disadvantaged students, citing substantial investment in staff training to enhance teaching and learning practices. The study identified successful strategies of schools in areas of high poverty, finding that: “In these schools … staff receive regular, relevant and high-quality professional training.”

System leadership, when done well, supports in the delivery of high-quality professional development. Either not being part of a MAT or being geographically isolated from other schools within a trust may limit the exposure and opportunity to benefit from this aspect of system leadership.

Although we live in a digital age where professional development is readily available online, limited internet connectivity also remains a significant barrier for some.

According to Social Mobility Commission’s report (2024), broadband access is a critical indicator of future upward mobility and yet there remain strong rural-to-urban disparities in broadband access.

 

Policy and funding prioritisation

Back in 2003, the Excellence in Cities report reviewed the measures put in place by the government to improve outcomes for disadvantaged students in city schools (Kendal et al, 2003).

These included targeted interventions such as gifted and talented programmes and collaborations through the Beacon schools initiative. While the initiative achieved mixed impact (the greatest impact was on maths at the end of key stage 3) critics argued that the policy largely focused on disadvantaged students in urban areas, and in London in particular with the famous London Challenge.

In his book, Luke Graham identified that the difficulty in identifying disadvantage in rural areas is complicated by dispersity. This, coupled with the overall trend of rural students performing better than their urban counterparts, may explain the absence of rural disadvantage-specific policy.

 

Cultural deprivation

The government’s publication Rural education and childcare (Defra, 2022) identified: “For a given level of deprivation, the attainment levels of pupils living in rural areas were lower than for pupils living in urban areas with a similar level of deprivation.”

The report also identifies that 26% of those living in rural areas live in deprived areas compared to 60% in urban areas, therefore masking the underperformance of disadvantaged students living rurally.

Rural pupils generally perform slightly worse than urban pupils in middle-to-high deciles (Defra, 2022), suggesting that factors other than deprivation, such as access to resources or school quality, may play a role in this rural underperformance.

Ofsted places considerable emphasis on cultural capital in its inspections, often expecting schools to provide pupils with opportunities to access a range of cultural and enrichment experiences. Urban areas, with their abundance of museums, theatres, art galleries, and extra-curricular activities, naturally offer greater and more convenient access to such opportunities.

In contrast, pupils in rural areas often face challenges, again due to geographical isolation with limited proximity to these cultural institutions.

This disparity extends to other activities, such as work experience, which is often easier to organise in urban settings for obvious reasons. Rural schools may also struggle to provide comparable opportunities due to fewer local businesses or organisations.

 

Demographics

White British students, on average, make less progress in educational outcomes compared to their non-white peers, according to the “Outcomes by ethnicity in schools in England” statistics (DfE, 2022). These figures highlight that “among those eligible for FSMs, white pupils are significantly behind other groups, with those from mixed backgrounds also having poorer outcomes than other groups”.

Urban areas tend to be more demographically diverse. For instance, the Office for National Statistics tells us that around 40% of Wolverhampton’s residents and more than 50% of Birmingham’s residents identify as non-white.

By contrast, rural areas where the population is more likely to be predominantly white British (97% in Cornwall, for example) see poorer outcomes for disadvantaged students.

This diversity, comparable to London, may contribute to FSM students in urban areas achieving better outcomes at the end of secondary school.

The Sutton Trust’s research Class differences: Ethnicity and disadvantage (Kirby & Cullinane, 2016) found a number of reasons for this disparity: parental aspirations, cultural expectations, use of private tutors, urban concentration, grants and access to university.

As noted in the outcomes by ethnicity statistics cited above, "geography should be considered a key area of analysis going forward" – emphasising the need to account for the nuanced challenges faced by poorer students living in rural areas, who are often overlooked in current data analyses.

 

Bridging the gap

The notion that rural students generally outperform their urban peers at GCSE is increasingly challenged by evidence highlighting the unique barriers faced by disadvantaged learners in rural areas.

Rural areas face challenges such as geographic isolation, limited access to cultural enrichment and inadequate connectivity, which exacerbate educational inequalities for disadvantaged students.

Recognising and addressing the nuances of rural disadvantage, particularly its intersection with ethnicity and socio-economic factors, should be a key focus for future educational strategies.

The disparities in outcomes between rural and urban disadvantaged students are not inevitable but can be mitigated through equitable resource allocation, responsive policy-making, and a commitment to supporting every learner, regardless of their postcode.

  • Debbie Tremble is assistant headteacher for teaching and learning at John Taylor High School in Staffordshire. She has 20 years’ experience in education, undertaking a variety of roles including head of English and trust lead for English and literacy. Debbie is an SLE for English, ELE for Staffordshire Research School, and is currently partaking in an NPQLTD. Find Debbie’s previous contributions to SecEd via www.sec-ed.co.uk/authors/debbie-tremble 

 

Further information & resources