Shared opportunities

For the school year 2015/16, the difference between the proportion of disadvantaged pupils and the proportion all other pupils attaining an A* – C in maths and English GCSE at 16 (the attainment gap) in Inner London is almost half (16 percentage points) of the attainment gap in the rest of England (30 percentage points). Outer London has a larger attainment gap than Inner London (23 percentage points) but is still significantly smaller than the rest of England.

The shrinking of the attainment gap in London is a key factor in the ‘London effect’ whereby London pupils outperform their counterparts in the rest of England.

The size of a borough’s attainment gap is generally driven by poor attainment by disadvantaged pupils rather than high attainment by non-disadvantaged pupils.* Most of the boroughs with the biggest attainment gaps between di…

This graph shows that pupils in London of every ethnicity have better attainment than their counterparts in the rest of England, as do pupils who speak English as a second language, and pupils with Special Educational Needs (SEN).

At 39%, Black pupils have the highest proportion of pupils not achieving A* – C in English and maths GCSEs in London, followed by White and Mixed (34%) ethnicities. 

Pupils who do not speak English as their first language have similar attainment as those who do. This is particularly important to attainment levels in London, where 40% (and 51% in Inner London) of pupils do not speak English as a first language. In the rest of England, only 10% of pupils do not speak English as a first language.

In 22 London boroughs, pupils who do not speak English as a first language are more likely to achieve GCSEs than those who…

Educational attainment improved more in London than in the rest of England in the early part of the last decade, but since 2012/13, improvements have stalled in many areas. The exception is Level 3 attainment in Inner London, where the proportion of 19-year-olds lacking these qualifications has continued to decline steadily.

 In 2016, 19-year-olds in the rest of England were more likely to lack Level 3 qualifications than those in London. 34% of 19-year-olds in Outer London lacked Level 3 qualifications (AS and A-Level qualifications)*, compared with 35% in Inner London and 44% in the rest of England.

The proportion of 19-year-olds lacking Level 2 (GCSE-level qualifications)** is similar in London and the rest of England. 14% of 19-year-olds in Inner London and 12% in Outer London lacked Level 2 qualifications compared with 15% in the rest…

For 19-year-olds in London in 2016, there was a 15 percentage point difference (attainment gap) between the proportion of pupils who had been eligible for free school meals (at age 15) and the proportion of all other students attaining Level 3 qualifications.* For the rest of England, the attainment gap was almost twice as big – 28 percentage points. 

The attainment gap has fallen in London (from 19.5% in 2006 to 15% in 2016) over the past decade, while in the rest of England it has not changed significantly. 

 As discussed in 10.2, the shrinking of the attainment gap is seen as a key factor in the ‘London effect’.

* In the London Poverty Profile 2015, this indicator used ‘proportion lacking five A* – C GCSEs including maths and English’ which cannot be used this year (see footnote 4). This year’s graph shows the attainment gap (in percenta…

In every London borough, the majority of 19-year-olds have Level 3 qualifications. Barking & Dagenham has the highest proportion of 19-year-olds lacking Level 3 qualifications at 46%, followed by Havering at 44%.

There is huge variation across boroughs with a 21 percentage point gap between the worst performing borough – Barking & Dagenham, and the best performing boroughs – Redbridge, Kensington & Chelsea and Harrow (in all three, only 25% of 19-year-olds lack Level 3 qualifications).

The pattern of qualifications by borough looks similar to 2014, with boroughs in the Outer West & Northwest and Inner West generally performing better on this measure than Outer East & Northeast. In previous editions of this report, Greenwich has been the worst performer, with 48% lacking a Level 3 qualification in 2014. It is now 41%, an…

This graph shows that London pupils who entered an A-level or equivalent in 2014/15 were more likely to go on to higher education in 2015/16 (58% in Outer London, 57% in Inner London) than their counterparts in the rest of England (47%).

In the rest of England, pupils who undertake A-levels are more likely to move directly into employment at age 19 (24%), than in Outer London (16%) or Inner London (12%). This group of young people is a relatively small proportion of total youth employment at age 19 – 83,000 of the 360,000 employed 19-year-olds. The majority of 19-year-olds in the labour market probably did not take A-levels.*

Young people in London are less likely to undertake apprenticeships after A-levels (4% in Inner & Outer London) than the rest of England (8%). The government hopes the apprenticeship levy**, which came into effect…

Both disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged students from London have higher rates of attending higher education institutions (HEIs) than pupils in the rest of England. Disadvantaged students in Inner London actually have the highest rate of attending HEIs – 59%. This will be important to monitor over time, as abolition of maintenance grants (2016) may lead to a decline in disadvantaged students attending HEIs.

This general pattern extends to the top third of HEIs (excluding the Russell Group), with higher proportions of both disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged pupils from London attending these universities than their counterparts in the rest of England. 

However, despite educational attainment gains in London for disadvantaged students, this is not translating through to improved representation of poorer students in elite Russell Group univ…

The two worst performing boroughs for 19-year-olds lacking Level 3 qualifications – Havering and Barking & Dagenham – are also the worst performing boroughs for older adults lacking Level 3 qualifications (52% and 48% respectively).

However, in some boroughs, the proportion of 25 to 49-year-olds without a Level 3 qualification is significantly lower than among 19-year-olds. In Lewisham, 37% of 19-year-olds lack these qualifications, compared with only 26% of 25 to 49-year-olds. Some variation by borough is probably due to the age profile of the borough, as older people (40 and over) are more likely to lack qualifications than younger adults. It may also indicate an educational attainment gap between local school leavers and incoming young professionals. 

There is little change in the pattern from the previous edition of this report, al…

This graph shows the proportion of the working-age population who are in employment, or unemployed and lacking but wanting work, by educational attainment.* Those who are lacking but wanting work are economically inactive and not available to work for various reasons (such as being a student or ill). They are not counted as unemployed.

In 2016 the employment rate for each group had increased compared with 2011. Among workers with a degree or equivalent, the employment rate was 86% in 2016 compared with 83% in 2011. For those with no or unknown qualifications the employment rate was less than half of this in 2016 at 40% and 38% in 2011.

The employment rate increased the most for those with A-levels or equivalent and those with other qualifications. For workers with A-levels or equivalent the employment rate increased by 6 percentage points …

This graph looks at what proportion of each region’s population are in the UK’s top or bottom 10% of the income distribution, measured after housing costs. For example, 15% of London's population are inside the poorest 10% of the national population. And 14.4% of London's population are inside the richest 10% of the national population. This makes London the most unequal region, as it has a relatively high proportion of people with high incomes and with low incomes. As a consequence, London has a relatively hollowed out middle of the income distribution within the UK.

Other regions tend to have relatively more low-income households or relatively more high-income households (such as the South East). Only London is over-represented at both the top and the bottom of the income distribution. This finding has been …

This graph looks at income inequality in London and the rest of England by comparing the ratio of top and bottom incomes after housing costs. It compares income at the top 10% and 20% with the bottom 10% and 20% respectively. These are known as 90:10 and 80:20 ratios. London has consistently been more unequal than the rest of England on these measures.

In the three years to 2015/16, the income of someone in a household just in the top 10% was eight times higher than someone just in the bottom 10%. For someone just in the top 20%, their income was 3.7 times higher than someone in the bottom 20%. For the rest of England, these figures were 4.9 and 2.8 respectively.

Increases in inequality in London were much more pronounced on the 90:10 measure, rising from a ratio of 6.9 in 1996/97 to a peak of 9.9 in …

This graph looks at the 80:20 ratios for London and the rest of England, before and after housing costs. Inequality in London is higher after housing costs are accounted for. The 80:20 ratio is 3.7 after housing costs, but 2.7 before housing costs. It has also fallen less over the course of the decade after housing costs: down 0.2, compared with 0.4 before housing costs.

The increase in inequality in London once housing costs are accounted for is large compared with the rest of England. The ratio is 0.3 higher after housing costs in England at 2.6, compared with 1.0 higher in London. In this way, London’s high housing costs contribute to its higher levels of inequality. Part of the reason for this is that those with higher incomes are more likely to own their own home, which tends to cost less than renting.…

The piechart divides the London population into 10 equally sized groups, and shows their share of all of London’s income, on a before housing costs basis.* This is all the income recorded by the Family Resources Survey dataset – such as earnings, benefits, pensions and other types such as capital income. This amounted to around £2.4 billion total income per week in this period. The bottom 10% of London household’s received only 2% of all income in London in the three years to 2015–16. In contrast, the top 10% received nearly a third (29%) of all income – more than the bottom 50%. All deciles in London received less than they would under a totally even division of income up to the 7th decile.

That the top 10% received nearly twice as much income as the second highest 10%, 29% compared with 15%, demonstrates …

This graph looks at gross weekly earnings across the regions of England, at the bottom 10% and the top 10%, and the ratio between these. It also features the ratio for just full-time jobs.

In 2016, a job at the bottom 10% paid £166 per week, compared with £1,190 for a job at the top 10%. This gives a ratio of 7.2, i.e. earnings towards the top of the labour market are 7.2 times higher than those towards the bottom. This is below the ratio for the South East and East of England: in these regions, pay at the top is lower than in London, but pay at the bottom is disproportionately low relative to this.

The inequality between the bottom and top 10% is less pronounced if we examine only full-time jobs. London is also the most unequal region on this basis, with a full- time job at the top 10% paying 3.8 tim…

This graph examines the change in pay at the bottom 10%, top 10% and middle of the earnings distribution for all jobs after inflation, measured using the CPIH.* The most notable feature across England between 2011 and 2016 is the strong growth in weekly pay at the bottom of the earnings distribution.

In London, earnings at the bottom 10% increased by 10% over this five-year period after inflation. In contrast, earnings at the median fell by 4% and earnings at the top 10% fell by 6%. London was the only region in England to have falling pay at the middle of the distribution, and also had the largest fall at the top. The region with the closest experience to London over this period was the South East, which had the second largest fall at the top 10% at 4%, and largely unchanged real median earnings.

This period inc…

The piechart looks at total wealth in London (some £1.8 trillion); split into the bottom 20% of the population and then each subsequent 10% of households. Total wealth here includes financial, property, physical and pension wealth. The bottom 10% of households in London has negative wealth, meaning their liabilities outweigh their assets. Even combined with the next 10% of households in London, they own only 0.1% of London’s total wealth. The bottom half combined own only 5.3% of total wealth in London. In contrast, the top 10% of households own over half of London’s wealth at 52%. The top 20% own 70% of London’s wealth.

Wealth ownership in London is much more unevenly distributed than income. One way of looking at this is through the Gini coefficient, a summary statistic which measures the level of inequal…

This graph looks at changes at the tenth, 30th, 50th, 70th and 90th percentiles for London and Great Britain between 2010–12 and 2012–14. These are the levels of wealth which a corresponding proportion of the population have below. Total wealth here includes financial, property, physical and pension wealth. The bottom 10% in London in 2012–14 had a wealth of £4,600 or less. In 2010–12, this figure was £6,800: a fall of 32%. The tenth percentile in Great Britain as a whole also fell, by 2% from £12,900 to £12,600. In contrast, the wealth of the median household in London rose more than in Great Britain as a whole, by 14% compared with 4%. At the 90th percentile, the increase was 25% in London and 15% in Great Britain. To be in the top 10% in London, a household required wealth of more than £1.4 million.

Weal…

This graph shows the mean income in each borough as a proportion of the median income in each borough*.

The higher this proportion is, the higher that the level of income inequality is in that borough. A figure of 100% would indicate that incomes below and above the median income are evenly distributed. Every borough has a figure above 100%, meaning that most people earn less than the mean income in every borough. Mean income is pushed up by households with high incomes and incomes which are unevenly distributed.

Kensington and Chelsea has a ratio of 209% which is significantly higher than any other borough. The next highest rates are in Westminster (170%), Camden (155%), Hammersmith & Fulham (144%) and Richmond (143%). A very similar list of boroughs are at the most expensive end of the Rents and Affordability data.

Barking and…

This graph shows pay inequality in each London borough by comparing the ratio of top and bottom pay. It compares gross hourly pay for the top 20% with the bottom 20% in each borough. The higher the pay ratio, the more unequal earnings are in that borough.

The pay ratio in Tower Hamlets is 3.33, significantly higher than any other borough. This means that in Tower Hamlets someone just in the top 20% has pay 3.33 times higher than someone just in the bottom 20%. Hounslow has the next highest ratio, with 2.88, followed by Westminster with 2.76. Therefore in these boroughs, hourly pay for the top 20% of earners is much higher than for the bottom 20%.

The most equal borough by this measure is Croydon, where the pay ratio is 2.29, followed by neighbouring Merton where it is 2.31, and Wandsworth where it is 2.33.

The difference between bor…