London’s lead masks widening post‑Covid gaps as ministers lack a clear delivery plan

New analysis from the Institute for Government and Department for Education data show London still outperforms the rest of England, but growing local disparities, rising severe absence and teacher shortages mean ministers have yet to set out a clear, resourced plan to close pandemic‑era gaps.

London’s schools remain a study in contrasts: pupils in the capital continue to outperform those elsewhere in England, yet a leading think tank has warned that there is no clear, cross‑government plan to close the widening gaps that have opened up since the Covid pandemic. According to the Institute for Government, educational inequalities have “grown wider and more pronounced” and ministers have “not yet articulated a clear vision or plan” for delivering their stated ambition to narrow disadvantage.
(Reporting and analysis informed by the IfG’s findings and commentary in The Independent.)

National attainment figures mask stark local variation. Department for Education statistics show that, at Key Stage 4, the headline measure of pupils achieving a strong pass in English and maths stands at roughly two‑thirds of students across the country, while Key Stage 2 results put London’s combined reading, writing and maths attainment at about 69 per cent — roughly eight points above the 61 per cent national average. The DfE’s datasets and the IfG’s analysis both highlight that average attainment at primary level has slipped since 2019, driven especially by falls in maths and writing.
(Compiled from Department for Education releases on Key Stage 4 and Key Stage 2 and the IfG report.)

The local picture is extreme. Some local authorities record attainment rates barely half those of the highest‑performing areas: examples cited by analysts include places where fewer than two in five pupils meet the KS4 English and maths standard, while affluent west London boroughs report rates in the eighties. The result is a widening gap between London and many other regions since the pandemic, and a growing gulf in outcomes between disadvantaged pupils and their better‑off peers in much of the country.
(Data points and regional contrasts drawn from the DfE performance releases and the IfG/Independent reporting.)

The IfG and other commentators point to several structural drivers. London’s relatively small disadvantage gap is attributed in part to its demographic mix and the capital’s ability to attract experienced, well‑qualified teachers; outside the capital, teacher shortages and resource constraints have made it harder for schools to recover lost ground. The Education Policy Institute’s work on local disadvantage gaps reaches similar conclusions, highlighting teacher supply, funding disparities and pupil absence as recurring factors behind local declines.
(Analysis referenced to the IfG, the Education Policy Institute and the Independent’s coverage.)

Pupil absence has emerged as a particular concern. Department for Education absence statistics show a rise in severe absence — pupils missing half or more of sessions — to levels approaching the low hundreds of thousands during the 2023/24 autumn term, a trend the IfG said will be “key” to narrowing inequalities. Charities and sector bodies warn this has real consequences beyond test scores: Teach First’s research and press statements point to long‑term destination gaps, with disadvantaged young people far more likely to be out of sustained education, employment or training several years after GCSEs. James Toop, head of Teach First, told The Independent the pandemic “set back a generation, with disadvantaged young people paying the highest price.”
(Drawn from DfE absence data, Teach First analysis and quotes reported in The Independent.)

Ministers say they are taking action but critics argue it is not yet sufficient or well targeted. The government points to measures such as the expert‑led Curriculum and Assessment Review, new regional improvement (Rise) teams, strengthened accountability and a promised schools white paper as steps to raise standards. It has also announced an expansion of free school meal eligibility — to cover all children in households on Universal Credit from the 2026 school year — which ministers say will support nutrition and help low‑income families. The Department for Education emphasises these policies while acknowledging more work is needed.
(Statements and policy measures referenced to the Department for Education press announcements and the DfE response reported in The Independent.)

Opposition politicians and sector figures say those commitments will not close the unfair local gaps unless funding and workforce incentives are rebalanced. Caroline Voaden, the Liberal Democrat MP on the Commons education select committee, told The Independent that funding for pupils with additional needs varies dramatically between places — “a Camden school is paid nearly three times as much as a school in Devon for every child with additional needs on their roll” — and argued that unequal funding, staffing and facilities help explain why children outside London are being left behind. The IfG calls for a clearer delivery plan that focuses on spreading what works, reducing absence and targeting support where the gaps are widest.
(Attribution and critique drawn from The Independent’s reporting, the IfG recommendations and EPI/sector commentary.)

The policy choices ahead are stark. Independent analysis and sector groups urge urgent action to recruit and incentivise high‑quality teachers into hard‑to‑staff areas, to restore the real‑terms value of pupil premium funding and to design interventions that reduce severe absence and support disadvantaged families. Without a detailed, resourced plan that links national ambition to local delivery, the risk is that the post‑pandemic divergence in opportunity becomes entrenched — consigning another cohort of children to lower attainment and poorer long‑term prospects.
(Synthesis informed by the IfG report, EPI findings, Teach First data and Department for Education policy announcements.)

📌 Reference Map:

Reference Map:

• Paragraph 1 – ^[1], ^[5]
• Paragraph 2 – ^[2], ^[3], ^[1]
• Paragraph 3 – ^[2], ^[1]
• Paragraph 4 – ^[1], ^[5]
• Paragraph 5 – ^[4], ^[6], ^[1]
• Paragraph 6 – ^[7], ^[1]
• Paragraph 7 – ^[1], ^[5], ^[6]

Source: Noah Wire Services

Noah Fact Check Pro

The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.

Freshness check

Score:
8

Notes:
The narrative presents recent data and analysis, with the earliest known publication date of the referenced IfG report being August 2025. The Independent’s article was published on August 20, 2025, indicating timely reporting. No evidence of recycled content or significant discrepancies with earlier versions was found. The narrative is based on a recent press release from the Institute for Government, which typically warrants a high freshness score. No major discrepancies or outdated information were identified.

Quotes check

Score:
9

Notes:
The article includes direct quotes from the Institute for Government’s report and other sources. No identical quotes were found in earlier material, suggesting originality. Variations in quote wording were noted, but these are likely due to paraphrasing rather than direct reuse. No online matches were found for the quotes, indicating potentially original or exclusive content.

Source reliability

Score:
10

Notes:
The narrative originates from The Independent, a reputable UK news outlet. The Institute for Government, cited as a source, is a well-established think tank. All individuals and organisations mentioned have verifiable public presences and legitimate websites, confirming their authenticity.

Plausability check

Score:
9

Notes:
The claims regarding widening educational inequalities in England since the Covid pandemic are consistent with previous reports and studies. The narrative provides specific data points and references to support its claims, enhancing credibility. The language and tone are appropriate for the topic and region, with no inconsistencies noted. The structure is focused and relevant, without excessive or off-topic detail. The tone is formal and consistent with typical journalistic standards.

Overall assessment

Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS

Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH

Summary:
The narrative presents timely and original content, supported by reliable sources and consistent with existing data on educational inequalities in England. No significant issues were identified in terms of freshness, originality, source reliability, or plausibility.