For over a decade, Bristol researchers used data to challenge long-standing beliefs and deliver fresh insights that drive better education policy. While data can reveal critical truths, it can also risk reinforcing assumptions.

Bristol’s response to the Government’s London Challenge program is a compelling example of how rigorous analysis can uncover the true drivers of success. With London’s exceptional GCSE performance attributed to the program, policymakers sought to replicate it nationwide believing it held the key to improvement. 

However, using large-scale administrative data, Bristol researchers revealed that London’s success stemmed primarily from its demographics — specifically, a high proportion of ethnic minority pupils who, on average, outperform their white British peers. 

The findings gained national attention, halting the program’s expansion, and saving £0.5 billion. It also shifted focus to the challenges of underperforming regions, freeing up resources for more evidence-based initiatives.

Using new admissions data, Bristol researchers have now questioned if the freedom academies and free schools have to introduce their own admissions policies is breaking down geographic barriers. The research exposes that nearly 90% of secondary schools in England still use criteria like catchment areas and travel time. 

Evidence suggests that location-based criteria limits social mobility, reinforces segregation, and disadvantages low-income families. Bristol are Bristol are crunching the numbers on alternative admissions methods, such as random ballots, ability banding, and prioritising disadvantaged pupils. 

While these ideas have yet to be adopted into policy, they build on the lessons of the London Effect by using robust data to challenge assumptions and propose new evidence-based solutions.

Discover more at Location, Segregation, Confusion - secondary school admissions in England.