Geographical Mobility, Pupil
Mobility and Child Outcomes
Joan Wilson,
Bedford Group For Lifecourse & Statistical Studies,
Institute of Education, University of London.
PhD Supervisors: Professor Heather Joshi & Dr. Kirstine Hansen,
Institute of Education.
Presentation Outline
 Focus of the research: including Key Questions to be
addressed by the work
 Motivations for the research
 Patterns of child migration in the UK
 Datasets to be used and outline of data analysis
methodology
 Current work
Research Focus I
 The impact of parental spatial behaviour on the distribution of
the life chances of offspring.
 Geographical location and child development: two important
factors for child development are defined by spatial occupancy:(a) Cognitive development =
neighbourhood engagement);
f (accessible
types of education,
(b) The formation of non-cognitive skills = f (internal home and
schooling experiences, the external neighbourhood environment).
 Parental behaviour in terms of spatial location can lead to
differentials in the life chances of children by affecting both their
cognitive and non-cognitive development.
Research Focus II
 Parents are able to reset their initial spatial location
 potential to alter the influences of spatial location on the
development of their child.
 Focal point of this thesis = examining spatial relocation activity
of parents and how this impacts on their offspring.
 Mainly assessing housing relocation which involves a transfer
of schools for the child.
 Also consider transfers of school or moves of home in isolation.
 Developmental effects: Educational outcomes and changes to
non-cognitive development.
Research Focus III
 Two angles through which spatial location and relocation can
influence child development:(1) Positively: Enhancing academic attainment e.g. where mobility
leads to the opportunity for education quality access improvements in
the new location.
(2) Negatively: Contributing to the persistence of
intergenerational disadvantage in the family unit e.g. where there
is mobility to an area characterised by more levels of deprivation
relative to the area previously inhabited.
 For mobile children, physical distance moved and types of moves
incorporated (school or home or a combination of the two) matter.
Key Questions

Can outcomes of future cohorts be enhanced or is child
progress worsened through moving?

Is there a scope for the spatial redistribution of
opportunities?

Can parental spatial behaviour be viewed as a facet of
parental ‘investment’ in offspring that can be used to produce
differentials in the life chances of children?
Motivations for the Research
 Government policy changes: the formation of the quasi-market
in education (Education Reform Act, 1988).
 Implications for parental spatial behaviour: influencing parental
spatial and schooling activity that relates to the acquisition of
school quality gains.
 Implications for the dispersion of equality in education: changes
to spatial processes induced by government policy may be
generating or contributing to educational and social
inequalities.
Patterns of Child Migration in the UK
Table 1: Migrant Children in the UK by Age Group, 1990/91 and 2000/01
(levels and percentage shares)
All ages 1 to 4
All ages 5 to 9
All ages 10 to 14
All aged 15
All ages 1 to 15
1990/91
360,958
272,988
191,970
32,852
858,768
% of all ages 1-15
42.0
31.8
22.4
3.8
100.0
% across Census
years
51.2
46.4
43.7
45.6
47.6
2000/01
344,189
315,574
247,288
39,261
946,312
% of all ages 1-15
36.4
33.3
26.1
4.1
100.0
% across Census
years
48.8
53.6
56.3
54.4
52.4
Sources: 1991 Census; Local Base Statistics (LBS 15) and 2001 Census; Standard Tables (ST008).
Patterns of Child Migration in the UK
Table 2: Main Reasons for Moving by Post-Move Tenure, England, 2000/01
(percentages)
Owned
outright
Owned with
mortgage
Rented from
Council
Rented from
housing
association
Rented
privately
All tenures
Wanted larger or better house or flat
6.7
23.0
16.5
15.3
9.4
15.6
Wanted smaller or cheaper house or flat
23.1
2.7
4.6
4.9
2.7
4.5
Divorce or separation
4.5
8.6
8.9
12.2
8.8
8.7
Marriage or cohabitation
6.5
11.7
6.0
6.1
5.7
8.0
Other personal reasons
21.6
5.1
15.3
14.7
8.1
9.4
To move to a better area
10.3
9.3
13.3
8.6
7.4
9.2
Job related reasons
7.1
8.8
1.5
3.2
25.2
13.2
Accommodation no longer available
0.0
0.7
5.3
6.3
7.6
4.2
Wanted to buy
2.8
15.6
0.0
0.0
0.1
5.9
Couldn't afford mortgage or rent
0.7
0.3
1.7
1.7
2.0
1.2
To live independently
3.7
9.3
11.8
11.6
7.4
8.8
Other reasons
12.9
4.8
15.1
15.6
15.6
11.4
All households (=100%) (millions)
0.2
0.8
0.3
0.2
0.8
2.3
Different size accommodation:
Personal reasons:
Patterns of Child Migration in the UK
Table 3: Proportion of School Movers and School Stayers Moving Home By
Year Group and Key Stage, 2000/01 – 2002/03
School Movers, S=1
School Stayers, S=0
Yeargroup
H=1
Proportion
H=1|S=1
Total school
movers
H=1
Proportion
H=1|S=0
Total school
stayers
1
27,387
0.663
41,285
42,411
0.081
524,236
2
23,049
0.512
45,048
48,391
0.092
526,678
KS1 average
0.588
0.086
3
26,662
0.522
51,103
40,780
0.076
533,216
4
26,403
0.410
64,322
38,989
0.075
520,097
5
21,312
0.596
35,736
48,132
0.084
572,979
6
79,990
0.145
553,433
3,803
0.078
48,533
KS2 average
0.418
0.078
7
13,375
0.380
35,173
43,390
0.078
559,755
8
14,086
0.282
50,008
40,931
0.076
536,768
9
9,677
0.378
25,599
43,060
0.075
572,843
KS3 average
10
0.347
4,274
0.472
0.076
9,061
8,379
0.015
557,801
Notes: School movers are those moving school at all times, including compulsory school moves. Changes in residential mobility
are determined by changes in residential postcodes over the academic years 2001/2002-2002/2003, corrected for Royal Mail
postcode changes over the period. Source: Machin et al (2006).
Dataset 1
 (1) National Pupil Database (NPD)
This comprises of the following:o Pupil Level Annual School Census (PLASC)
 Administrative dataset. Collects information on the school roll of state
school pupils in England in January of each year.
 4 waves (academic years) of data available: 2001/2002 to 2004/2005.
 Variables included: (1) Free School Meal (FSM) eligibility as an
indicator of social disadvantage, (2) Special Educational Needs (SEN)
status, (3) mother tongue language, (4) ethnic group, and (5) gender.
Also includes information on the home postcode of the pupil in each
academic year and the code of the school they attend in that year.
Dataset 1
 (1) National Pupil Database (NPD) (continued)
o National Curriculum Key Stage test scores
 Available at the end of Key Stage 1 (aged 6/7), Key Stage 2
(aged 10/11), Key Stage 3 (aged 13/14) and Key Stage 4
(GCSE’s, aged 15/16).
 Pupil attainment records are comparable with government
targets of achievement at each Key Stage.
Dataset 2
 (2) Millennium Cohort Study (MCS) older siblings sample
o UK based longitudinal birth cohort study.
o Disproportional representation of families in England inhabiting areas of child
poverty and areas containing high ethnic minority populations.
o First sweep: cohort members were 9 months old
 11,533 families in England
 Information collected on 11,695 children in England.
o Second sweep: cohort members were 3 years old
 10,050 families in England
 Information collected on 10,188 children in England.
o Second sweep also includes a sample of older siblings, aged 4-15, living in the
same household as the cohort child
 5,652 families in England (56% of all responding families)
 Information collected on 7,765 older siblings in England.
o Sample data is provided both by parents and by older siblings themselves (if aged
over 10) through a self-completion questionnaire.
Dataset 2
 (2) MCS older siblings sample (continued)
o Older siblings sample includes responses relating to: Behavioural adjustment : useful in the assessment of non-cognitive
development.
 Community: including involvement in community groups, employment
outside of school hours and term times, and perceptions of the area inhabited.
 Schooling: including extra tuition outside of the classroom, parental
involvement in school matters, education aspirations, attitudes to schooling,
and attendance.
 Other: exposure to or involvement in crime and bullying, and parental
levels of discipline at home.
o Residential mobility: Can be derived from comparative address changes at
each interview stage: Location of the MCS child at birth (2000-01);
 Location of MCS1 interview in 2001-02, MCS2 interview in 2003-04, and
MCS3 interview in 2005-06.
Dataset 3
 (3) Longitudinal Study of Young People in England (LSYPE)
o Target population sampled: young people in Year 9 (age 13-14)
in all schools in England in February 2004.
o Wave 1 sample size: 15,770 households (response of 74%), with
an average of 32 pupils sampled per school.
o Panel study involving annual interviews of the sample of young
people and their parents.
o Plans to collect up to 11 waves of data (to age 25).
o Sample boosts in the maintained schools sector for deprivation
factors and for ethnicity. Schools having 20% or more of pupils
entitled to Free School Meals were over-sampled by 1.5.
Dataset 3

(3) LSYPE (continued)
Young Person Section
o
Young person is interviewed on topics e.g. year 10 subject choices,
attitudes towards current school, future plans, homework and use of
leisure time.
o
‘Self completion’ questions cover topics e.g. experiences of truancy,
bullying, smoking and drug taking, attitudes towards school and
relationship with parents/guardians.
Young Person History Section
o
Parent/guardian is interviewed on topics e.g. details of the young
person’s birth, health and school history.
Dataset 3

(3) LSYPE (continued)
Main Adult Section
o
Topics include attitudes towards young person’s school, aspirations
about young person’s future and whether young person has any
Special Educational Needs.
o
‘Self completion’ questions cover topics e.g. relationship with young
person and whether they have had any contact with services.
Individual adult section
o
Parents/guardians are interviewed on topics e.g. their education and
qualifications, current employment, employment history and health.
Data Analysis
 (1) NPD
o Residential mobility: Measured by changes in recorded home postcode of
the pupil across the waves.
o Pupil mobility: Measured by changes in code of the school attended by the
pupil across the waves (excluding all compulsory school moves).
o Impact of mobility on attainment: Measured by changes to value-added
between each KS test score, using non-mobile pupils for comparison.
o Coverage: Mobility patterns across all school phases.
 (2) MCS older siblings sample and NPD; and (3) LSYPE and NPD
o Residential and pupil mobility measured as above.
o Qualitative survey evidence used to measure behavioural changes and
impact of mobility on non-cognitive outcomes.
o Coverage of datasets (2): mobility patterns across primary school phase
and part of secondary school phase; (3): mobility patterns across secondary
school phase.
Current Work
 Using NPD: Matching PLASC to Key Stage data.
 Looking at changes to value added and mobility between: Key Stage 1 (aged 6/7 in 2000/2001) and Key Stage 2
(aged 10/11 in 2004/2005);
 Key Stage 2 (aged 10/11 in 2001/2002) and Key Stage
3 (aged 13/14 in 2004/2005);
 Key Stage 3 (aged 13/14 in 2002/2003) and Key Stage
4 (aged 15/16 in 2004/2005).