One of my grand theories is that public policy types are generally bad at geography. Or, at the least, they underestimate the importance of where you live. Here, below the fold, are two zoomable maps, coloured by the school performance of local state-educated children. The map is based on where the children live, not where they go to school. To explain:
- The colouring is red for weaker results and blue for better ones. Darker colours mean more extreme results. If you want detail on an area, click on any one of the blobs and it should give you a run down of local statistics, where possible.
- Both maps are coloured according to FT score results: that is the sum of state-educated pupils’ scores in English, maths and their top three other subjects. Other data, including official measures, are in the boxes that pop up.
- On the first map, the geographical blobs are smaller than on previous maps: the lowest super output area in high density places, and the middle-layer output area in zones of low density (this way, we can show maximum detail).
- That map can be quite frazzling. The second might be more to some people’s tastes. This is exactly the same sort data, just arranged by parliamentary constituency. Since they are bigger lumps, we can include more detailed data.
- For the constituencies, I have given a barrage of results for all local children in state schools. But also the same just for FSM-eligible children, and for children dubbed “middle attainers” – kids who score in the middle tenth of results aged 11.
- (NB – Where statistics are missing, it is prevent people combining data sources to work out something about individual children.)
If you want a tour, I’d recommend scrolling along the coasts. Check out some of the coastal towns, and look at the belt of towns and cities between Hull and Liverpool. Also, take a peek at how few dark red areas there are in London. In-borough variation is interesting, too: look at the massive variation within, say, Kent.