Development goals for 4 to 5 year olds
Published
There is a new version of this page. View the latest version.
- 1. Navigate to Main facts and figures section
- 2. Navigate toBy ethnicity section
- 3. Navigate toBy ethnicity and eligibility for free school meals section
- 4. Navigate toBy ethnicity and area section
- 5. Navigate toBy ethnicity and gender section
- 6. Navigate toBy ethnicity, gender and eligibility for free school meals section
- 7. Navigate toBy ethnicity, gender and area section
- 8. Navigate to Methodology section
- 9. Navigate to Data sources section
- 10. Navigate to Download the data section
1. Main facts and figures
- 71% of 4 to 5 year olds met the expected standard in development by the end of the 2018 to 2019 school year
- 76% of pupils from the Chinese ethnic group met the expected standard (the highest percentage out of the 6 aggregated ethnic groups)
- 78% of pupils from the Indian ethnic group met the standard (the highest percentage out of all 18 ethnic groups)
- in every ethnic group, pupils eligible for free school meals were less likely to meet the standard than non-eligible pupils
- in every ethnic group, girls were more likely to meet the expected standard than boys
Things you need to know
In the 2018 to 2019 school year, there were 638,946 pupils at the end of the early years foundation stage in England.
The ethnic group was known for 616,459 (97%) of them. Of those:
- 72% were White
- 11% were Asian
- 7% had Mixed ethnicity
- 5% were Black
- 2% were from the Other ethnic group
- 0.5% were from the Chinese ethnic group
The results include pupils at both:
- state-funded schools (including academies)
- private, voluntary and independent settings
Schools complete each child's early years foundation stage profile during the summer term of the academic year in which the child reaches 5 years old. This is usually the child's 'reception year' at primary school.
Some pupils aren’t included, for example if they:
- have an exemption from the Secretary of State for Education
- are continuing in EYFS provision beyond the year in which they turn 5 years old
- have recently arrived from abroad and so the school can't carry out an accurate assessment
- have spent a long time away from school, for example because of illness
The percentages shown here don't include pupils who were exempt.
Figures for some ethnic groups at the local authority level are very small. Please use caution when you're interpreting them.
What the data measures
This data measures the percentage of pupils who met the expected standard in development at the end of the early years foundation stage in England.
Teachers assess their pupils' development at the end of the school year in which the children turn 5 years old. (Usually the reception year of primary school.)
Children are assessed against ‘early learning goals’ in 7 areas of learning.
This data covers the academic year 2018/19 (September 2018 to July 2019).
Data was collected for 638,946 pupils.
The ethnic categories used in this data
This data uses categories from the Department for Education’s (DfE) school census. This is based on the 2001 Census of England and Wales, with 3 exceptions:
- Travellers of Irish Heritage and Gypsy/Roma pupils have been separated into 2 categories
- Sri Lankan has been added to the Asian/Asian British group but is not reported separately
- Chinese pupils have been assigned a separate category
These changes were made after consultations with local authorities and lobby groups.
Information is provided for both individual and aggregated ethnic groups categories where possible and when the data is available. The 6 aggregated ethnic groups are:
- Asian
- Black
- Chinese
- Mixed/Multiple ethnic groups
- White
- Other ethnic group
The Other ethnic group isn’t included in data analysed by local authority area, because DfE does not publish this data.
2. By ethnicity
Ethnicity | % | All pupils |
---|---|---|
All | 71 | 638,946 |
Asian | 69 | 69,185 |
Bangladeshi | 67 | 10,212 |
Indian | 78 | 20,363 |
Pakistani | 64 | 27,141 |
Asian other | 69 | 11,469 |
Black | 68 | 31,136 |
Black African | 68 | 21,432 |
Black Caribbean | 68 | 5,270 |
Black other | 66 | 4,434 |
Chinese | 76 | 3,002 |
Mixed | 72 | 41,685 |
Mixed White/Asian | 75 | 10,305 |
Mixed White/Black African | 71 | 5,777 |
Mixed White/Black Caribbean | 69 | 9,814 |
Mixed other | 73 | 15,789 |
White | 72 | 459,403 |
White British | 73 | 409,675 |
White Irish | 74 | 1,551 |
Gypsy/Roma | 34 | 2,151 |
Irish Traveller | 39 | 665 |
White other | 66 | 45,361 |
Other | 63 | 12,048 |
Download table data for ‘By ethnicity’ (CSV) Source data for ‘By ethnicity’ (CSV)
Summary of Development goals for 4 to 5 year olds By ethnicity Summary
This data shows that, in the 2018 to 2019 school year:
- 71% of pupils met the expected standard in development in the early years foundation stage (when they are usually 5 years old)
- 78% of pupils from the Indian ethnic group met the expected standard, the highest percentage out of all ethnic groups
- the figures for the Chinese (76%), Mixed White and Asian (75%), White Irish (74%), White British (73%), and Mixed Other (73%) ethnic groups were also higher than the national average
- Gypsy/Roma pupils were least likely to meet the expected standard, with 34% doing so
3. By ethnicity and eligibility for free school meals
All other pupils | FSM eligible | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Ethnicity | All other pupils % | All other pupils Pupils | FSM eligible % | FSM eligible Pupils |
All | 73 | 549,204 | 55 | 89,742 |
Asian | ||||
Bangladeshi | 68 | 8,564 | 62 | 1,648 |
Indian | 78 | 19,646 | 66 | 717 |
Pakistani | 65 | 23,627 | 60 | 3,514 |
Asian other | 70 | 10,210 | 58 | 1,259 |
Black | ||||
Black African | 69 | 17,016 | 64 | 4,416 |
Black Caribbean | 70 | 3,730 | 61 | 1,540 |
Black other | 67 | 3,382 | 61 | 1,052 |
Chinese | 77 | 2,789 | 67 | 213 |
Mixed | ||||
Mixed White/Asian | 78 | 8,943 | 59 | 1,362 |
Mixed White/Black African | 73 | 4,592 | 60 | 1,185 |
Mixed White/Black Caribbean | 73 | 6,874 | 59 | 2,940 |
Mixed other | 75 | 13,072 | 60 | 2,717 |
White | ||||
White British | 76 | 350,353 | 53 | 59,322 |
White Irish | 78 | 1,354 | 49 | 197 |
Gypsy/Roma | 35 | 1,521 | 33 | 630 |
Irish Traveller | 47 | 360 | 29 | 305 |
White other | 66 | 42,489 | 55 | 2,872 |
Other | 65 | 9,646 | 56 | 2,402 |
Download table data for ‘By ethnicity and eligibility for free school meals’ (CSV) Source data for ‘By ethnicity and eligibility for free school meals’ (CSV)
Summary of Development goals for 4 to 5 year olds By ethnicity and eligibility for free school meals Summary
Eligibility for free school meals (FSM) is used as an indicator of deprivation by the Department for Education.
This data shows that, in the 2018 to 2019 school year:
- 55% of FSM-eligible pupils met the expected standard, compared with 73% of non-FSM pupils
- in every ethnic group, FSM-eligible pupils were less likely to meet the expected standard than non-FSM pupils
- among FSM-eligible pupils, those from the Chinese ethnic group were the most likely out of all ethnic groups to meet the expected standard (at 67%)
- Traveller of Irish Heritage pupils were the least likely out of all ethnic groups to meet the expected standard (at 29%)
- the figures for the White British (53%), White Irish (49%), and Gypsy and Roma (33%) ethnic groups were also lower than the national average
- White Irish pupils had the biggest attainment gap between FSM-eligible (49%) and non-FSM pupils (78%)
- Gypsy and Roma pupils had the smallest attainment gap between FSM-eligible (33%) and non-FSM pupils (35%)
4. By ethnicity and area
Local authority | All | Asian | Black | Chinese | Mixed | White |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
% | % | % | % | % | % | |
All England | 71 | 69 | 68 | 76 | 72 | 72 |
Barking and Dagenham | 70 | 70 | 73 | 67 | 70 | 69 |
Barnet | 73 | 76 | 71 | 80 | 74 | 76 |
Barnsley | 69 | 64 | 83 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 77 | 69 |
Bath and North East Somerset | 73 | 67 | 50 | 63 | 68 | 74 |
Bedford Borough | 68 | 64 | 64 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 69 | 69 |
Bexley | 75 | 76 | 74 | 88 | 78 | 76 |
Birmingham | 66 | 67 | 67 | 75 | 69 | 67 |
Blackburn with Darwen | 66 | 67 | 75 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 62 | 67 |
Blackpool | 67 | 44 | 71 | 60 | 83 | 67 |
Bolton | 66 | 66 | 56 | 68 | 68 | 67 |
Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole | 73 | 78 | 74 | 67 | 69 | 75 |
Bracknell Forest | 76 | 74 | 78 | 64 | 83 | 76 |
Bradford | 67 | 66 | 61 | 71 | 68 | 68 |
Brent | 71 | 76 | 68 | 90 | 76 | 72 |
Brighton and Hove | 71 | 63 | 65 | 53 | 75 | 72 |
Bristol City of | 70 | 65 | 59 | 82 | 71 | 72 |
Bromley | 77 | 81 | 67 | 89 | 79 | 79 |
Buckinghamshire | 74 | 66 | 64 | 73 | 75 | 76 |
Bury | 70 | 64 | 57 | 75 | 69 | 73 |
Calderdale | 69 | 58 | 56 | 43 | 75 | 72 |
Cambridgeshire | 70 | 67 | 64 | 76 | 72 | 70 |
Camden | 72 | 72 | 69 | 78 | 77 | 73 |
Central Bedfordshire | 72 | 73 | 58 | 93 | 68 | 72 |
Cheshire East | 71 | 73 | 57 | 63 | 68 | 72 |
Cheshire West and Chester | 71 | 74 | 57 | 43 | 70 | 71 |
City of London | 85 | 86 | N/A* | N/A* | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 91 |
Cornwall | 69 | 58 | 100 | 64 | 79 | 69 |
Coventry | 69 | 71 | 69 | 84 | 69 | 68 |
Croydon | 73 | 74 | 71 | 100 | 76 | 74 |
Cumbria | 70 | 55 | 71 | 71 | 66 | 70 |
Darlington | 70 | 63 | 89 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 61 | 71 |
Derby | 70 | 74 | 68 | 73 | 75 | 69 |
Derbyshire | 69 | 62 | 64 | 81 | 67 | 70 |
Devon | 72 | 69 | 85 | 50 | 71 | 73 |
Doncaster | 71 | 75 | 58 | 50 | 75 | 72 |
Dorset | 71 | 52 | 57 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 72 | 72 |
Dudley | 65 | 60 | 68 | 73 | 65 | 66 |
Durham | 71 | 68 | 73 | 90 | 71 | 71 |
Ealing | 70 | 74 | 67 | 75 | 72 | 73 |
East Riding of Yorkshire | 73 | 58 | 75 | N/A* | 68 | 73 |
East Sussex | 76 | 72 | 55 | 80 | 77 | 76 |
Enfield | 69 | 81 | 66 | 76 | 76 | 68 |
Essex | 73 | 73 | 67 | 80 | 74 | 74 |
Gateshead | 72 | 74 | 59 | 69 | 75 | 73 |
Gloucestershire | 71 | 57 | 56 | 65 | 71 | 72 |
Greenwich | 78 | 77 | 76 | 88 | 82 | 78 |
Hackney | 68 | 81 | 71 | 94 | 76 | 79 |
Halton | 65 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | N/A* | 68 | 65 |
Hammersmith and Fulham | 72 | 74 | 64 | 78 | 68 | 77 |
Hampshire | 76 | 75 | 72 | 77 | 73 | 77 |
Haringey | 74 | 76 | 69 | 76 | 77 | 77 |
Harrow | 74 | 78 | 64 | 75 | 77 | 73 |
Hartlepool | 71 | 65 | 57 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 78 | 72 |
Havering | 71 | 73 | 69 | 76 | 76 | 71 |
Herefordshire | 75 | 70 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 83 | 76 |
Hertfordshire | 72 | 69 | 64 | 78 | 71 | 73 |
Hillingdon | 74 | 78 | 73 | 85 | 78 | 71 |
Hounslow | 72 | 76 | 69 | 81 | 76 | 70 |
Isle of Wight | 70 | 50 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 77 | 70 |
Isles of Scilly | 79 | N/A* | N/A* | N/A* | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 81 |
Islington | 68 | 66 | 61 | 75 | 75 | 69 |
Kensington and Chelsea | 68 | 60 | 61 | 100 | 74 | 75 |
Kent | 73 | 77 | 73 | 71 | 76 | 74 |
Kingston Upon Hull City of | 63 | 73 | 62 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 67 | 64 |
Kingston upon Thames | 75 | 70 | 74 | 83 | 74 | 78 |
Kirklees | 69 | 64 | 61 | 67 | 67 | 72 |
Knowsley | 66 | 89 | 43 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 62 | 66 |
Lambeth | 70 | 60 | 66 | 82 | 69 | 77 |
Lancashire | 67 | 57 | 62 | 69 | 69 | 69 |
Leeds | 66 | 62 | 59 | 82 | 66 | 68 |
Leicester | 66 | 71 | 61 | 64 | 68 | 63 |
Leicestershire | 71 | 72 | 65 | 79 | 70 | 71 |
Lewisham | 76 | 74 | 70 | 76 | 77 | 82 |
Lincolnshire | 69 | 73 | 67 | 86 | 69 | 69 |
Liverpool | 64 | 61 | 59 | 64 | 62 | 65 |
Luton | 67 | 68 | 73 | 80 | 69 | 66 |
Manchester | 64 | 64 | 67 | 59 | 67 | 66 |
Medway | 73 | 70 | 73 | 57 | 76 | 73 |
Merton | 75 | 72 | 72 | 87 | 78 | 77 |
Middlesbrough | 61 | 62 | 73 | 50 | 57 | 62 |
Milton Keynes | 73 | 80 | 66 | 84 | 77 | 72 |
Newcastle upon Tyne | 70 | 66 | 60 | 88 | 74 | 72 |
Newham | 74 | 77 | 72 | 85 | 79 | 73 |
Norfolk | 72 | 66 | 76 | 89 | 78 | 72 |
North East Lincolnshire | 70 | 71 | 60 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 73 | 71 |
North Lincolnshire | 70 | 69 | 45 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 69 | 72 |
North Somerset | 74 | 61 | 77 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 74 | 75 |
North Tyneside | 71 | 67 | 60 | 69 | 71 | 71 |
North Yorkshire | 72 | 56 | 72 | 44 | 76 | 72 |
Northamptonshire | 70 | 71 | 72 | 70 | 66 | 70 |
Northumberland | 74 | 67 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 70 | 75 |
Nottingham | 65 | 67 | 68 | 73 | 67 | 64 |
Nottinghamshire | 69 | 63 | 67 | 61 | 68 | 70 |
Oldham | 66 | 60 | 69 | 54 | 67 | 71 |
Oxfordshire | 73 | 66 | 64 | 79 | 72 | 74 |
Peterborough | 65 | 61 | 63 | 76 | 72 | 65 |
Plymouth | 68 | 71 | 82 | 56 | 69 | 68 |
Portsmouth | 69 | 59 | 69 | 82 | 72 | 70 |
Reading | 67 | 72 | 60 | 87 | 72 | 69 |
Redbridge | 75 | 79 | 70 | 84 | 78 | 70 |
Redcar and Cleveland | 70 | 75 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 74 | 70 |
Richmond upon Thames | 80 | 78 | 64 | 89 | 80 | 82 |
Rochdale | 64 | 61 | 58 | 77 | 63 | 67 |
Rotherham | 69 | 66 | 64 | 81 | 67 | 70 |
Rutland | 78 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 67 | N/A* | 81 | 78 |
Salford | 66 | 66 | 62 | 90 | 66 | 69 |
Sandwell | 65 | 68 | 65 | 72 | 67 | 65 |
Sefton | 68 | 53 | 46 | 67 | 73 | 68 |
Sheffield | 70 | 68 | 69 | 79 | 67 | 72 |
Shropshire | 72 | 58 | 88 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 86 | 72 |
Slough | 73 | 77 | 72 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 74 | 68 |
Solihull | 70 | 74 | 49 | 73 | 63 | 72 |
Somerset | 71 | 68 | 63 | 78 | 69 | 72 |
South Gloucestershire | 76 | 75 | 73 | 84 | 73 | 77 |
South Tyneside | 72 | 63 | 42 | 60 | 68 | 73 |
Southampton | 70 | 69 | 74 | 81 | 74 | 70 |
Southend-on-Sea | 73 | 65 | 67 | 92 | 75 | 75 |
Southwark | 73 | 71 | 70 | 77 | 78 | 79 |
St. Helens | 68 | 50 | 67 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 69 | 69 |
Staffordshire | 73 | 68 | 66 | 74 | 73 | 74 |
Stockport | 69 | 62 | 52 | 61 | 63 | 71 |
Stockton-on-Tees | 73 | 64 | 74 | 63 | 72 | 74 |
Stoke-on-Trent | 65 | 61 | 65 | 63 | 63 | 68 |
Suffolk | 69 | 65 | 61 | 86 | 69 | 71 |
Sunderland | 72 | 65 | 58 | 71 | 66 | 73 |
Surrey | 78 | 74 | 72 | 89 | 81 | 78 |
Sutton | 72 | 76 | 66 | 81 | 70 | 72 |
Swindon | 70 | 73 | 75 | 75 | 73 | 70 |
Tameside | 65 | 57 | 48 | 67 | 66 | 68 |
Telford and Wrekin | 70 | 60 | 72 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 77 | 70 |
Thurrock | 72 | 69 | 76 | 50 | 77 | 72 |
Torbay | 70 | 46 | 0 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 79 | 71 |
Tower Hamlets | 69 | 69 | 73 | 72 | 69 | 69 |
Trafford | 74 | 68 | 60 | 78 | 69 | 77 |
Wakefield | 70 | 61 | 56 | 70 | 69 | 71 |
Walsall | 66 | 66 | 61 | 85 | 65 | 67 |
Waltham Forest | 76 | 74 | 71 | 78 | 80 | 78 |
Wandsworth | 76 | 72 | 66 | 77 | 73 | 81 |
Warrington | 73 | 67 | 63 | 71 | 71 | 73 |
Warwickshire | 71 | 73 | 61 | 93 | 72 | 71 |
West Berkshire | 74 | 78 | 65 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 76 | 75 |
West Sussex | 71 | 64 | 61 | 54 | 73 | 72 |
Westminster | 70 | 77 | 70 | 86 | 68 | 76 |
Wigan | 66 | 51 | 57 | 75 | 67 | 67 |
Wiltshire | 71 | 71 | 67 | 75 | 68 | 72 |
Windsor and Maidenhead | 74 | 68 | 86 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 74 | 76 |
Wirral | 67 | 59 | 83 | 63 | 75 | 68 |
Wokingham | 76 | 78 | 77 | 87 | 77 | 76 |
Wolverhampton | 67 | 67 | 64 | 73 | 70 | 67 |
Worcestershire | 71 | 66 | 62 | 80 | 72 | 72 |
York | 74 | 55 | 85 | 90 | 69 | 75 |
Download table data for ‘By ethnicity and area’ (CSV) Source data for ‘By ethnicity and area’ (CSV)
Summary of Development goals for 4 to 5 year olds By ethnicity and area Summary
The summary below only includes figures based on enough pupils to make reliable generalisations.
This data shows that, in the 2018 to 2019 school year:
- out of all local authorities, Asian pupils were most likely to meet the expected standard in Knowsley (89%) and least likely to in Blackpool (44%)
- Black pupils were most likely to meet the expected standard in Cornwall (100%) and least likely to in Torbay (0%)
- 100% of Chinese pupils met the expected standard in Croydon and Kensington and Chelsea – they were least likely to meet the standard in Calderdale, and Cheshire West and Chester (both 43%)
- pupils with Mixed ethnicity were most likely to meet the expected standard in Shropshire (86%) and least likely to in Middlesbrough (57%)
- White pupils were most likely to meet the expected standard in the City of London (91%) and least likely to in Middlesbrough (62%)
5. By ethnicity and gender
Boys | Girls | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Ethnicity | Boys % | Boys All pupils | Girls % | Girls All pupils |
All | 64 | 327,425 | 78 | 311,521 |
Asian | ||||
Bangladeshi | 60 | 5,219 | 75 | 4,993 |
Indian | 72 | 10,461 | 84 | 9,902 |
Pakistani | 57 | 13,957 | 72 | 13,184 |
Asian other | 61 | 5,900 | 77 | 5,569 |
Black | ||||
Black African | 60 | 10,958 | 77 | 10,474 |
Black Caribbean | 60 | 2,716 | 75 | 2,554 |
Black other | 58 | 2,262 | 74 | 2,172 |
Chinese | 72 | 1,589 | 81 | 1,413 |
Mixed | ||||
Mixed White/Asian | 69 | 5,281 | 82 | 5,024 |
Mixed White/Black African | 64 | 2,970 | 78 | 2,807 |
Mixed White/Black Caribbean | 61 | 4,913 | 77 | 4,901 |
Mixed other | 66 | 8,186 | 79 | 7,603 |
White | ||||
White British | 66 | 209,870 | 79 | 199,805 |
White Irish | 67 | 774 | 81 | 777 |
Gypsy/Roma | 27 | 1,070 | 41 | 1,081 |
Irish Traveller | 31 | 330 | 47 | 335 |
White other | 59 | 23,296 | 73 | 22,065 |
Other | 56 | 6,159 | 70 | 5,889 |
Download table data for ‘By ethnicity and gender’ (CSV) Source data for ‘By ethnicity and gender’ (CSV)
Summary of Development goals for 4 to 5 year olds By ethnicity and gender Summary
This data shows that, in the 2018 to 2019 school year:
- 78% of girls and 64% of boys met the expected standard in development
- in every ethnic group, girls were more likely than boys to meet the expected standard
- girls from the Indian ethnic group were the most likely to meet the expected standard (84%)
- Gypsy/Roma boys were the least likely to (27%)
- the biggest gap between girls and boys was in the Black African ethnic group, where 77% of girls and 60% of boys met the standard
- the smallest gap between girls and boys was in the Chinese ethnic group, where 81% of girls and 72% of boys met the standard
- among White British pupils, 79% of girls and 66% of boys met the expected standard
6. By ethnicity, gender and eligibility for free school meals
Boys | Girls | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Ethnicity | Boys FSM | Boys Non- FSM | Girls FSM | Girls Non- FSM |
All | 47 | 67 | 63 | 80 |
Asian | 53 | 64 | 70 | 78 |
Bangladeshi | 53 | 61 | 72 | 76 |
Indian | 59 | 72 | 73 | 84 |
Pakistani | 52 | 58 | 69 | 73 |
Asian other | 50 | 63 | 67 | 78 |
Black | 55 | 61 | 71 | 78 |
Black African | 55 | 61 | 72 | 78 |
Black Caribbean | 53 | 63 | 69 | 78 |
Black other | 54 | 59 | 68 | 76 |
Chinese | 67 | 73 | 66 | 82 |
Mixed | 52 | 69 | 68 | 82 |
Mixed White/Asian | 52 | 72 | 67 | 84 |
Mixed White/Black African | 54 | 66 | 67 | 81 |
Mixed White/Black Caribbean | 51 | 65 | 67 | 81 |
Mixed other | 53 | 69 | 69 | 82 |
White | 45 | 68 | 61 | 81 |
White British | 45 | 70 | 62 | 82 |
White Irish | 33 | 72 | 68 | 83 |
Gypsy/Roma | 27 | 26 | 38 | 43 |
Irish Traveller | 21 | 40 | 38 | 53 |
White other | 47 | 60 | 63 | 73 |
Other | 49 | 58 | 63 | 72 |
Download table data for ‘By ethnicity, gender and eligibility for free school meals’ (CSV) Source data for ‘By ethnicity, gender and eligibility for free school meals’ (CSV)
Summary of Development goals for 4 to 5 year olds By ethnicity, gender and eligibility for free school meals Summary
Eligibility for free school meals (FSM) is used as an indicator of deprivation by the Department for Education.
This data shows that:
- 63% of FSM-eligible girls and 47% of boys met the expected standard, compared with 80% of non-FSM girls and 67% of boys
- in every ethnic group, FSM-eligible girls were less likely to meet the expected standard than non-FSM girls
- in every ethnic group except Gypsy and Roma, FSM-eligible boys were less likely to meet the expected standard than non-FSM boys
- in every ethnic group except Chinese, FSM-eligible girls were more likely than FSM-eligible boys to meet the standard
- among FSM-eligible pupils, girls from the Indian ethnic group were the most likely to meet the expected standard (73%)
- White Irish Traveller FSM-eligible boys were the least likely to meet the expected standard (21%)
- the White Irish ethnic group had the biggest gap between FSM-eligible girls (68%) and boys (33%), at 35 percentage points
- the White Irish ethnic group also had the biggest gap between FSM-eligible boys (33%) and non-FSM boys (72%), at 39 percentage points
- the White British ethnic group had the biggest gap between FSM-eligible girls (62%) and non-FSM girls (82%), at 20 percentage points
7. By ethnicity, gender and area
All | Asian | Black | Chinese | Mixed | White | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Local Authority | All Girls | All Boys | Asian Girls | Asian Boys | Black Girls | Black Boys | Chinese Girls | Chinese Boys | Mixed Girls | Mixed Boys | White Girls | White Boys |
Barking and Dagenham | 78 | 62 | 77 | 65 | 80 | 66 | 100 | 50 | 81 | 60 | 78 | 60 |
Barnet | 80 | 67 | 83 | 70 | 78 | 66 | 89 | 72 | 83 | 66 | 82 | 70 |
Barnsley | 78 | 60 | 50 | 75 | 89 | 78 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 90 | 66 | 78 | 60 |
Bath and North East Somerset | 78 | 68 | 67 | 67 | 67 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 50 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 75 | 61 | 79 | 69 |
Bedford Borough | 75 | 61 | 70 | 57 | 76 | 55 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 77 | 63 | 75 | 63 |
Bexley | 82 | 69 | 84 | 68 | 80 | 69 | 88 | 87 | 85 | 70 | 82 | 70 |
Birmingham | 74 | 59 | 75 | 59 | 75 | 58 | 70 | 79 | 76 | 62 | 74 | 60 |
Blackburn with Darwen | 75 | 58 | 78 | 57 | 71 | 78 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 76 | 50 | 74 | 60 |
Blackpool | 73 | 61 | 56 | 39 | 100 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 76 | 88 | 73 | 61 |
Bolton | 74 | 57 | 76 | 57 | 69 | 45 | 71 | 60 | 73 | 64 | 76 | 59 |
Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole | 81 | 66 | 83 | 73 | 94 | 56 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 100 | 76 | 64 | 83 | 67 |
Bracknell Forest | 82 | 70 | 81 | 67 | 81 | 75 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 63 | 92 | 68 | 82 | 71 |
Bradford | 74 | 60 | 73 | 58 | 66 | 57 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 76 | 58 | 75 | 62 |
Brent | 77 | 65 | 81 | 72 | 74 | 62 | 83 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 85 | 66 | 80 | 66 |
Brighton and Hove | 77 | 66 | 58 | 67 | 68 | 61 | 75 | 29 | 82 | 69 | 79 | 66 |
Bristol City of | 76 | 63 | 75 | 55 | 66 | 51 | 100 | 70 | 78 | 65 | 79 | 65 |
Bromley | 84 | 71 | 87 | 75 | 78 | 55 | 93 | 85 | 85 | 73 | 86 | 73 |
Buckinghamshire | 80 | 67 | 71 | 60 | 73 | 55 | 70 | 75 | 82 | 69 | 83 | 69 |
Bury | 77 | 65 | 79 | 50 | 71 | 44 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 75 | 78 | 62 | 78 | 68 |
Calderdale | 77 | 61 | 68 | 49 | 57 | 55 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 82 | 68 | 80 | 65 |
Cambridgeshire | 77 | 63 | 76 | 57 | 73 | 57 | 80 | 73 | 79 | 67 | 78 | 63 |
Camden | 80 | 65 | 80 | 66 | 76 | 62 | 86 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 85 | 70 | 80 | 66 |
Central Bedfordshire | 79 | 65 | 79 | 65 | 70 | 49 | 100 | 89 | 81 | 55 | 79 | 66 |
Cheshire East | 78 | 65 | 81 | 64 | 69 | 47 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 60 | 69 | 68 | 79 | 66 |
Cheshire West and Chester | 78 | 64 | 81 | 69 | 75 | 46 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 20 | 76 | 64 | 78 | 64 |
City of London | 95 | 78 | 100 | 78 | N/A* | N/A* | N/A* | N/A* | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 100 | 83 |
Cornwall | 77 | 61 | 73 | 36 | 100 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 60 | 67 | 83 | 75 | 77 | 61 |
Coventry | 74 | 63 | 78 | 65 | 76 | 63 | 91 | 75 | 71 | 67 | 74 | 63 |
Croydon | 79 | 68 | 79 | 69 | 79 | 64 | 100 | 100 | 82 | 71 | 79 | 70 |
Cumbria | 77 | 62 | 53 | 60 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 67 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 67 | 63 | 69 | 78 | 62 |
Darlington | 77 | 64 | 78 | 48 | 100 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | N/A* | 67 | 57 | 77 | 65 |
Derby | 77 | 62 | 80 | 67 | 77 | 59 | 50 | 89 | 85 | 63 | 77 | 62 |
Derbyshire | 76 | 62 | 66 | 58 | 71 | 50 | 67 | 90 | 76 | 58 | 77 | 63 |
Devon | 78 | 66 | 65 | 75 | 100 | 71 | 67 | 33 | 75 | 67 | 79 | 67 |
Doncaster | 78 | 64 | 81 | 67 | 70 | 48 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 80 | 70 | 79 | 65 |
Dorset | 77 | 65 | 63 | 41 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 83 | 63 | 78 | 66 |
Dudley | 73 | 57 | 69 | 51 | 73 | 64 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 63 | 74 | 57 | 75 | 57 |
Durham | 78 | 64 | 61 | 73 | 75 | 71 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 100 | 86 | 56 | 78 | 64 |
Ealing | 77 | 64 | 81 | 67 | 76 | 58 | 86 | 67 | 84 | 62 | 78 | 69 |
East Riding of Yorkshire | 81 | 66 | 71 | 40 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | N/A* | N/A* | 79 | 59 | 81 | 66 |
East Sussex | 83 | 68 | 84 | 62 | 68 | 42 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 88 | 84 | 69 | 83 | 69 |
Enfield | 76 | 62 | 86 | 75 | 74 | 57 | 80 | 75 | 78 | 74 | 76 | 60 |
Essex | 80 | 67 | 82 | 65 | 73 | 60 | 76 | 84 | 80 | 67 | 80 | 68 |
Gateshead | 79 | 66 | 72 | 75 | 62 | 58 | 69 | 70 | 72 | 77 | 80 | 66 |
Gloucestershire | 78 | 64 | 67 | 48 | 56 | 56 | 75 | 56 | 76 | 67 | 79 | 65 |
Greenwich | 84 | 72 | 88 | 68 | 83 | 69 | 90 | 86 | 88 | 76 | 83 | 73 |
Hackney | 76 | 61 | 86 | 74 | 80 | 62 | 100 | 86 | 83 | 70 | 82 | 75 |
Halton | 75 | 56 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | N/A* | N/A* | 85 | 52 | 75 | 57 |
Hammersmith and Fulham | 80 | 65 | 86 | 58 | 75 | 55 | 100 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 70 | 66 | 83 | 72 |
Hampshire | 83 | 70 | 85 | 64 | 79 | 65 | 74 | 79 | 80 | 67 | 83 | 71 |
Haringey | 81 | 67 | 86 | 66 | 78 | 60 | 93 | 60 | 81 | 74 | 83 | 71 |
Harrow | 80 | 68 | 83 | 72 | 74 | 54 | 69 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 83 | 71 | 79 | 67 |
Hartlepool | 79 | 64 | 73 | 60 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | N/A* | 100 | 64 | 79 | 64 |
Havering | 78 | 64 | 83 | 65 | 77 | 59 | 70 | 86 | 80 | 72 | 78 | 64 |
Herefordshire | 80 | 71 | 77 | 57 | N/A* | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | N/A* | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 89 | 77 | 81 | 72 |
Hertfordshire | 78 | 66 | 73 | 64 | 73 | 55 | 76 | 79 | 79 | 64 | 80 | 67 |
Hillingdon | 80 | 68 | 85 | 72 | 80 | 67 | 75 | 100 | 83 | 74 | 78 | 65 |
Hounslow | 78 | 67 | 84 | 69 | 72 | 66 | 75 | 88 | 80 | 73 | 76 | 65 |
Isle of Wight | 76 | 64 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 33 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 100 | 61 | 76 | 64 |
Isles of Scilly | 73 | 85 | N/A* | N/A* | N/A* | N/A* | N/A* | N/A* | N/A* | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 73 | 92 |
Islington | 76 | 61 | 80 | 52 | 68 | 54 | 80 | 71 | 82 | 69 | 78 | 61 |
Kensington and Chelsea | 76 | 61 | 60 | 60 | 71 | 53 | 100 | N/A* | 84 | 67 | 81 | 69 |
Kent | 80 | 67 | 88 | 67 | 83 | 64 | 93 | 62 | 84 | 69 | 80 | 68 |
Kingston Upon Hull City of | 71 | 56 | 76 | 71 | 74 | 53 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | N/A* | 75 | 58 | 72 | 57 |
Kingston upon Thames | 83 | 68 | 80 | 61 | 89 | 63 | 84 | 83 | 84 | 64 | 83 | 73 |
Kirklees | 76 | 62 | 72 | 58 | 66 | 57 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 67 | 72 | 63 | 79 | 65 |
Knowsley | 74 | 58 | 100 | 82 | 50 | 33 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | N/A* | 64 | 58 | 75 | 58 |
Lambeth | 76 | 65 | 59 | 61 | 73 | 58 | 100 | 60 | 78 | 60 | 82 | 72 |
Lancashire | 74 | 60 | 64 | 49 | 69 | 57 | 64 | 75 | 77 | 62 | 76 | 62 |
Leeds | 73 | 59 | 69 | 54 | 64 | 54 | 100 | 71 | 73 | 58 | 75 | 61 |
Leicester | 72 | 60 | 79 | 64 | 66 | 57 | 62 | 67 | 74 | 61 | 69 | 57 |
Leicestershire | 78 | 64 | 81 | 62 | 88 | 49 | 91 | 72 | 78 | 62 | 78 | 65 |
Lewisham | 82 | 70 | 83 | 67 | 78 | 63 | 87 | 71 | 83 | 71 | 86 | 78 |
Lincolnshire | 76 | 62 | 80 | 67 | 75 | 60 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 72 | 66 | 77 | 62 |
Liverpool | 71 | 57 | 70 | 52 | 68 | 52 | 84 | 47 | 73 | 51 | 72 | 59 |
Luton | 75 | 60 | 76 | 60 | 80 | 66 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 75 | 63 | 74 | 59 |
Manchester | 72 | 57 | 71 | 58 | 74 | 60 | 58 | 60 | 75 | 59 | 74 | 58 |
Medway | 78 | 67 | 69 | 71 | 81 | 64 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 77 | 76 | 79 | 67 |
Merton | 81 | 69 | 80 | 65 | 77 | 68 | 92 | 83 | 89 | 67 | 82 | 72 |
Middlesbrough | 67 | 56 | 63 | 61 | 76 | 70 | 60 | 40 | 56 | 59 | 70 | 55 |
Milton Keynes | 80 | 66 | 84 | 76 | 75 | 57 | 100 | 71 | 86 | 67 | 79 | 66 |
Newcastle upon Tyne | 76 | 64 | 71 | 62 | 70 | 51 | 81 | 92 | 76 | 73 | 78 | 65 |
Newham | 81 | 68 | 82 | 71 | 82 | 62 | 80 | 89 | 87 | 71 | 83 | 65 |
Norfolk | 79 | 65 | 71 | 62 | 90 | 63 | 100 | 79 | 82 | 75 | 79 | 65 |
North East Lincolnshire | 78 | 63 | 100 | 20 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 82 | 66 | 78 | 63 |
North Lincolnshire | 77 | 64 | 75 | 65 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 44 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 71 | 67 | 78 | 65 |
North Somerset | 80 | 69 | 78 | 44 | 80 | 75 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 77 | 70 | 80 | 69 |
North Tyneside | 77 | 66 | 89 | 55 | 80 | 50 | 40 | 88 | 74 | 68 | 77 | 66 |
North Yorkshire | 79 | 65 | 63 | 48 | 71 | 72 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 33 | 83 | 69 | 79 | 66 |
Northamptonshire | 76 | 63 | 75 | 67 | 84 | 61 | 88 | 60 | 75 | 59 | 77 | 64 |
Northumberland | 82 | 67 | 82 | 50 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 70 | 69 | 82 | 68 |
Nottingham | 73 | 57 | 74 | 59 | 79 | 60 | 90 | 63 | 72 | 61 | 73 | 56 |
Nottinghamshire | 77 | 63 | 68 | 58 | 65 | 69 | 74 | 52 | 79 | 57 | 78 | 64 |
Oldham | 74 | 58 | 68 | 52 | 82 | 55 | 50 | 60 | 78 | 55 | 78 | 63 |
Oxfordshire | 80 | 66 | 74 | 59 | 78 | 49 | 75 | 82 | 81 | 63 | 81 | 68 |
Peterborough | 72 | 58 | 69 | 53 | 73 | 55 | 90 | 57 | 87 | 59 | 72 | 59 |
Plymouth | 74 | 62 | 78 | 63 | 94 | 67 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 40 | 73 | 66 | 74 | 63 |
Portsmouth | 75 | 63 | 70 | 50 | 73 | 64 | 88 | 78 | 78 | 67 | 77 | 63 |
Reading | 74 | 60 | 81 | 61 | 68 | 53 | 90 | 80 | 81 | 64 | 73 | 64 |
Redbridge | 81 | 69 | 85 | 72 | 77 | 64 | 83 | 85 | 84 | 74 | 76 | 65 |
Redcar and Cleveland | 75 | 64 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 86 | N/A* | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | N/A* | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 68 | 82 | 76 | 64 |
Richmond upon Thames | 85 | 76 | 84 | 72 | 77 | 47 | 93 | 86 | 85 | 76 | 88 | 77 |
Rochdale | 71 | 57 | 67 | 56 | 65 | 53 | 67 | 86 | 81 | 46 | 73 | 61 |
Rotherham | 77 | 61 | 75 | 57 | 92 | 40 | 82 | 80 | 74 | 59 | 77 | 63 |
Rutland | 81 | 75 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | N/A* | N/A* | 67 | 100 | 82 | 75 |
Salford | 74 | 58 | 71 | 62 | 75 | 49 | 100 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 78 | 55 | 77 | 62 |
Sandwell | 72 | 58 | 73 | 63 | 74 | 57 | 100 | 59 | 75 | 60 | 73 | 57 |
Sefton | 75 | 61 | 64 | 36 | 80 | 25 | 86 | 40 | 69 | 77 | 76 | 61 |
Sheffield | 76 | 63 | 76 | 60 | 74 | 63 | 75 | 81 | 76 | 59 | 79 | 65 |
Shropshire | 80 | 65 | 71 | 50 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 91 | 81 | 80 | 65 |
Slough | 80 | 66 | 85 | 70 | 85 | 63 | N/A* | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 79 | 69 | 74 | 63 |
Solihull | 76 | 65 | 83 | 66 | 58 | 39 | 80 | 70 | 74 | 53 | 76 | 67 |
Somerset | 78 | 64 | 86 | 55 | 86 | 44 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 67 | 72 | 66 | 79 | 65 |
South Gloucestershire | 82 | 70 | 78 | 72 | 95 | 50 | 100 | 67 | 83 | 62 | 83 | 71 |
South Tyneside | 81 | 65 | 75 | 54 | 67 | 17 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 71 | 67 | 81 | 66 |
Southampton | 79 | 62 | 77 | 63 | 91 | 59 | 89 | 75 | 85 | 63 | 79 | 63 |
Southend-on-Sea | 79 | 68 | 74 | 56 | 77 | 59 | 100 | 80 | 77 | 74 | 80 | 69 |
Southwark | 80 | 67 | 88 | 57 | 79 | 61 | 71 | 83 | 83 | 74 | 85 | 72 |
St. Helens | 76 | 61 | 40 | 56 | 57 | 75 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 67 | 71 | 77 | 61 |
Staffordshire | 80 | 67 | 76 | 61 | 73 | 59 | 79 | 71 | 78 | 69 | 81 | 67 |
Stockport | 75 | 64 | 71 | 55 | 64 | 40 | 82 | 42 | 70 | 56 | 76 | 66 |
Stockton-on-Tees | 80 | 67 | 75 | 54 | 92 | 61 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 73 | 71 | 81 | 68 |
Stoke-on-Trent | 73 | 58 | 71 | 52 | 71 | 58 | 79 | 20 | 70 | 57 | 75 | 61 |
Suffolk | 78 | 61 | 82 | 47 | 77 | 46 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 78 | 61 | 79 | 62 |
Sunderland | 80 | 65 | 77 | 55 | 83 | 46 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 67 | 66 | 66 | 81 | 65 |
Surrey | 84 | 72 | 82 | 67 | 81 | 60 | 97 | 83 | 86 | 75 | 85 | 72 |
Sutton | 79 | 65 | 78 | 73 | 75 | 58 | 81 | 82 | 79 | 62 | 80 | 64 |
Swindon | 76 | 64 | 80 | 66 | 87 | 57 | 83 | 67 | 81 | 61 | 75 | 65 |
Tameside | 75 | 56 | 66 | 47 | 66 | 31 | 67 | 67 | 75 | 57 | 77 | 59 |
Telford and Wrekin | 76 | 63 | 63 | 57 | 85 | 55 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 83 | 71 | 76 | 64 |
Thurrock | 79 | 65 | 82 | 58 | 84 | 69 | 57 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 79 | 75 | 79 | 65 |
Torbay | 77 | 63 | 63 | 20 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 78 | 82 | 78 | 64 |
Tower Hamlets | 77 | 61 | 77 | 60 | 81 | 64 | 86 | 61 | 78 | 60 | 78 | 60 |
Trafford | 81 | 68 | 77 | 59 | 69 | 52 | 85 | 72 | 76 | 62 | 84 | 72 |
Wakefield | 78 | 62 | 69 | 53 | 69 | 46 | 71 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 84 | 59 | 79 | 63 |
Walsall | 74 | 57 | 74 | 58 | 77 | 50 | 89 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 75 | 55 | 75 | 58 |
Waltham Forest | 80 | 71 | 79 | 69 | 78 | 64 | 100 | 56 | 84 | 77 | 83 | 75 |
Wandsworth | 82 | 70 | 83 | 63 | 71 | 62 | 100 | 57 | 78 | 67 | 86 | 77 |
Warrington | 79 | 67 | 69 | 65 | 62 | 67 | 88 | 50 | 75 | 67 | 80 | 67 |
Warwickshire | 79 | 64 | 81 | 66 | 74 | 50 | 100 | 88 | 80 | 63 | 79 | 64 |
West Berkshire | 80 | 69 | 94 | 67 | 67 | 64 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 80 | 71 | 80 | 69 |
West Sussex | 78 | 64 | 70 | 59 | 65 | 57 | 55 | 53 | 80 | 67 | 79 | 65 |
Westminster | 77 | 63 | 80 | 74 | 86 | 55 | 89 | 80 | 79 | 58 | 80 | 72 |
Wigan | 74 | 60 | 59 | 44 | 69 | 47 | 78 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 75 | 61 | 74 | 60 |
Wiltshire | 78 | 65 | 87 | 57 | 70 | 63 | 80 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 77 | 58 | 79 | 66 |
Windsor and Maidenhead | 78 | 70 | 74 | 63 | 83 | 88 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | N/A* | 84 | 63 | 79 | 74 |
Wirral | 74 | 61 | 60 | 58 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 40 | 73 | 84 | 65 | 75 | 61 |
Wokingham | 81 | 71 | 84 | 73 | 79 | 76 | 86 | 88 | 84 | 72 | 82 | 70 |
Wolverhampton | 73 | 61 | 74 | 62 | 73 | 56 | 80 | 70 | 75 | 66 | 73 | 61 |
Worcestershire | 77 | 65 | 73 | 59 | 71 | 50 | 80 | 80 | 75 | 70 | 78 | 66 |
York | 79 | 69 | 54 | 56 | 83 | 86 | withheld because a small sample size makes it unreliable | 83 | 72 | 64 | 81 | 70 |
Download table data for ‘By ethnicity, gender and area’ (CSV) Source data for ‘By ethnicity, gender and area’ (CSV)
Summary of Development goals for 4 to 5 year olds By ethnicity, gender and area Summary
Figures for the Asian, Black and Chinese ethnic groups are based on small numbers of pupils. Because of this, they're more likely to change from year to year.
The summary below only includes figures based on enough pupils to make reliable generalisations.
This data shows that:
- girls were more likely to meet the expected standard than boys in every local authority apart from Isles of Scilly
- among Asian pupils, girls were more likely than boys to meet the expected standard in 134 out of 146 local authorities where data was available
- the biggest gap was in North East Lincolnshire, where 100% of Asian girls and 20% of Asian boys met the standard
- among Black pupils, girls were more likely than boys to meet the expected standard in 122 out of 130 local authorities where data was available
- the biggest gap was in Sefton, where 80% of Black girls and 25% of Black boys met the standard
- among pupils from the Chinese ethnic group, girls were more likely than boys to meet the expected standard in 57 out of 87 local authorities where data was available
- the biggest gap was in Stoke-on-Trent, where 79% of girls and 20% of boys from the Chinese ethnic group met the standard
- among pupils with Mixed ethnicity, girls were more likely than boys to meet the expected standard in 139 out of 149 local authorities where data was available
- the biggest gap was in Isle of Wight, where 100% of girls and 61% of boys with Mixed ethnicity met the standard
- among White pupils, girls were more likely than boys to meet the expected standard in all local authorities except the Isles of Scilly
- the biggest gap between White girls and boys (18 percentage points) was found in 7 local authorities: Halton, Tameside, Barnsley, Dudley, Newham, Tower Hamlets and Barking and Dagenham
8. Methodology
The early years foundation stage profile is an assessment by teachers of their pupils’ development. Teachers assess their pupils at the end of the school year in which the children turn 5 years old.
The dataset is a statutory annual collection of data from all local authorities in England, which runs from June to the beginning of September.
The dataset for the 2018 to 2019 school year includes valid results for 638,946 pupils.
Ethnicity isn’t collected as part of the early years foundation stage profile. So early years data is matched to data on the national pupil database to get information broken down by ethnic group.
Ethnicity data on the national pupil database comes from the school census.
There were some discrepancies between the 2 sets of data. Of the 638,995 pupils with valid early years results, 638,946 were found in the national pupil database.
Of these 638,946 pupils, ethnicity was not found for 22,487 pupils (4%).
Free school meals (FSM):
Pupils are included in the figures for free school meals if their families claimed eligibility for FSM at the time of the annual spring school census. This definition includes all pupils who were eligible to receive free school meals, not only those who actually received free school meals.
Pupils not eligible for free school meals or unclassified pupils are described as ‘Non-FSM’ or ‘All other pupils’.
Parents are able to claim FSM if they receive a qualifying benefit like Jobseeker’s Allowance.
FSM is used as an indicator of disadvantage. Not all eligible parents apply for FSM, and families who don’t quite reach the eligibility threshold for FSM may still be suffering deprivation.
There were 89,742 pupils eligible for FSM in early years foundation stage (14% of all pupils).
Rounding
Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number.
Related publications
Statistics: early years foundation stage profile – includes previous years' data.
Quality and methodology information
9. Data sources
Source
Early years foundation stage profile results: 2018 to 2019
Type of data
Administrative data
Type of statistic
National Statistics
Publisher
Department for Education
Note on corrections or updates
A revised version of the data, which added breakdowns for pupil characteristics, has been used. The original publication was released on 17/10/2019.
Publication frequency
Yearly
Purpose of data source
The early years foundation stage profile aims to:
- support pupils' transition to key stage 1 (which they take from 5 to 7 years old)
- help teachers to plan an effective, responsive and appropriate curriculum for all pupils
- inform parents and carers about their child’s development against early learning goals
10. Download the data
This file contains the following: measure, time, time_type, ethnicity, ethnicity_type, geography, geography_type, geography_name, gender, gender_type, value, denominator, value note and geography name
This file contains the following: measure, time, time type, ethnicity, gender, FSM eligible, percentage value, denominator