Attainment and Attendance in Eastbourne

What the national model behind How to Pull the Right Lever says about the district’s secondary schools, within East Sussex and alongside Brighton and Hove. Draft for discussion.

Author
Affiliation

Adam Dennett

Bartlett Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, University College London

Published

November 2, 2026

WarningDraft for discussion

One of the district documents for Sussex. It sits beneath the East Sussex document, and the district summary compares all of the districts. Every figure comes from published Department for Education data and the national models of How to Pull the Right Lever. Nothing uses pupil-level records. The commentary is written to a common pattern from the figures; read it as a starting point for discussion.

Summary

Eastbourne’s results are among the weakest of England’s districts, on an intake more disadvantaged than England’s. Its 6 state secondary schools are in Eastbourne.

  • Overall results: 42.7 in Attainment 8 in 2024/25, 226th of 264 districts in England.
  • Disadvantage: 30.0% of pupils are disadvantaged, against 28.3% nationally.
  • Disadvantaged pupils average 33.2, below the national 37.8 (218th of 264).
  • The gap between disadvantaged pupils and the rest is 13.9 points, the 91st widest of 264.

The other findings:

  • For all pupils, Eastbourne is 3.4 points below England. The largest pieces in the national model are prior attainment (-2.3) and Ofsted ratings (-0.5). The district’s schools take 0.2 points beyond what the model expects.
  • For disadvantaged pupils it is 3.5 points below England. The largest pieces are prior attainment (-1.6) and being in the South East (-1.3), and the schools take 0.2 points beyond what the model expects.
  • A district effect on the published model disappears once each school’s own record is counted. On the published model Eastbourne differs from the rest of East Sussex for absence (-8.2%), but that difference belongs to particular schools, not to the place.
  • 2 of the 6 schools are above expectation over 2021/22 to 2024/25. The strongest is St Catherine’s College (+1.3); the weakest Gildredge House (-2.1).
  • Absence was 8.8% in autumn and spring 2025/26 (8.7% a year earlier), against 8.0% for England and 8.9% for East Sussex. Over 2021/22 to 2024/25 its schools ran 0.4 points below what their intakes predict, and The Turing School more than a point above.
  • Reduced timetables run at 1.5 times the national rate, and suspensions at 1.2 times (24.9 episodes per 100 pupils, against 21.2). That counts episodes, not pupils: 8.0 pupils per 100 were suspended at least once, about 3.1 times each, against 7.3 per 100 and 2.9 times in England.
  • Disadvantaged groups are small, 33 to 67 pupils a year per school. Every school-level figure for them moves from year to year and should be read over several years.

1 About this analysis

Eastbourne is a district of East Sussex, not a local authority, and that shapes what can be said:

  • The national models place schools in local authorities. The “local authority effect” in this document is East Sussex’s, shared with every school in the county.
  • What is particular to Eastbourne shows up in its schools’ own residuals, and in the district test of Section 6.
  • Absence and exclusions are summed over the district’s 6 schools, followed through any change of URN.

The methods are described in full in the East Sussex document.

2 The district’s schools

Eastbourne’s state-funded secondary schools, coloured by overall absence in 2024/25. Choose another measure from the menu above the map; circle size is the school’s roll. Hover for figures and who runs each school.

Every state-funded secondary school in the district, 2024/25, with the size of its disadvantaged Year 11 group. Ofsted (model) is the rating the model uses, from the last graded inspection before September 2024. Ofsted, latest is the most recent judgement in Ofsted’s data as at 30 September 2026, which is a report card’s achievement and curriculum grades, the quality of education grade for an inspection between September 2024 and November 2025 that gave no overall grade, or otherwise the last graded inspection.
School Town Type Pupils FSM % Disadvantaged in Year 11 Absence % KS2 Att 8 Att 8 disadv. Ofsted (model) Ofsted, latest
Gildredge House Eastbourne Academy 1168 22.3 33 6.3 4.1 46.6 35.1 Good (Nov 2018) No overall grade (Oct 2024): quality of education Good
Ratton School Eastbourne Academy 1197 23.3 55 9.1 2.4 42.9 29.8 Good (Apr 2013) Report card (May 2026): achievement Expected standard, curriculum and teaching Expected standard
St Catherine's College Eastbourne Academy 1072 21.9 47 8.7 4.8 47.4 38.4 Good (Nov 2019) Good (Nov 2019); Standards maintained (May 2025)
The Cavendish School Eastbourne Academy 1372 25.9 44 6.4 4.1 47.2 41.3 Good (Mar 2018) No overall grade (Jan 2025): quality of education Outstanding
The Eastbourne Academy Eastbourne Academy 800 41.9 67 10.8 -0.1 37.7 32.3 Requires Improvement (May 2022) No overall grade (Jan 2025): quality of education Inadequate
The Turing School Eastbourne Academy 765 44.8 56 15.0 0.7 34.5 22.1 Requires Improvement (Jun 2023) Report card (Feb 2026): achievement Needs attention, curriculum and teaching Needs attention

None of the 6 schools is maintained by East Sussex County Council. The academies are run as follows:

  • Gildredge House, a single-academy trust;
  • Ratton School, in South Downs Learning Trust;
  • St Catherine’s College, in Diocese of Chichester Academy Trust;
  • The Cavendish School, in Cavendish Education Trust;
  • The Eastbourne Academy, in Swale Academies Trust (sponsored);
  • The Turing School, in Swale Academies Trust (sponsored);
Figure 1: Who ran each school in 2024/25, and how far its results sat above or below the national model’s expectation over 2021/22 to 2024/25.

3 How Eastbourne compares

Eastbourne against East Sussex, Brighton and Hove and England, 2024/25. Means of school-level figures.
Measure Eastbourne East Sussex Brighton and Hove England
Attainment 8, all pupils 42.7 43.8 45.5 46.8
Attainment 8, disadvantaged 33.2 33.0 33.9 37.7
Attainment 8, non-disadvantaged 47.0 47.5 49.6 49.9
Disadvantage gap (points) 13.9 14.5 15.7 12.2
Disadvantaged (FSM6) % 30.0 25.5 28.8 28.4
Overall absence % 9.4 9.7 11.3 8.6
Persistent absence % 24.6 26.4 30.6 23.9
Mean KS2 (centred) 2.67 3.79 4.71 4.47
EAL % 10.8 6.3 13.0 18.4
Figure 2: Attainment 8 for disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged pupils in East Sussex’s districts, 2024/25, school means. The gap between the two is printed on each district’s line; Eastbourne is in bold.

Across the years the model covers, the gap was 10.5 points in 2021/22 and 13.9 in 2024/25. Eastbourne’s non-disadvantaged pupils were above England’s average in 0 of 4 years, and its disadvantaged pupils in 0.

4 What explains attainment in Eastbourne

Figure 3: Why average Attainment 8 differs from England’s, by factor, all school-years 2021/22 to 2024/25, for Eastbourne, East Sussex and Brighton and Hove. Approximate Attainment 8 points; the pieces sum to the total in each panel.
The decomposition for Eastbourne, in Attainment 8 points. ‘Place’ is East Sussex’s effect plus the South East’s; ‘unexplained’ is what the district’s own schools add beyond everything the model accounts for.
Factor All pupils Disadvantaged Non-disadvantaged
Prior attainment (KS2) -2.32 -1.57 -2.23
Ofsted rating -0.55 -0.50 -0.51
Disadvantage (% FSM) -0.32 +0.09 -0.13
Unexplained (school residual) -0.22 -0.20 -0.12
Teacher workforce -0.21 -0.10 -0.23
English as an additional language -0.01 -0.03 -0.02
Absence -0.00 +0.04 +0.03
Place (region and local authority) -0.00 -1.03 +0.28
Other model terms +0.08 -0.38 +0.06

For all pupils, Eastbourne is 3.4 points below England. The pieces of at least a quarter of a point:

  • prior attainment (-2.32);
  • Ofsted ratings (-0.55);
  • being in the South East (-0.46);
  • East Sussex’s county-wide effect (+0.46);
  • the level of disadvantage (-0.32);
  • and the district’s schools themselves (-0.22), beyond what the model expects.

For disadvantaged pupils, Eastbourne is 3.5 points below England. The pieces of at least a quarter of a point:

  • prior attainment (-1.57);
  • being in the South East (-1.32);
  • Ofsted ratings (-0.50);
  • admissions (-0.30);
  • East Sussex’s county-wide effect (+0.29);
  • and the district’s schools themselves (-0.20), beyond what the model expects.

5 The disadvantaged gap, school by school

Figure 4: Each school’s value added for its disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged pupils, mean over the years available (2021/22 to provisional 2025/26). Above zero means better than the national model expects for similar pupils.

1 of the 6 schools is above expectation for non-disadvantaged pupils and more than a point below it for disadvantaged ones: The Turing School. The Eastbourne Academy is above expectation for both groups. The table below gives each school’s own persistent effect, from the model with a school term, which is the steadier measure.

Table 1: Each school’s own persistent effect on the national model with a school term (%), for each group of pupils and for absence beyond what its intake predicts. Positive absence is worse.
School All pupils Disadvantaged Non-disadvantaged Absence (stage 1)
The Eastbourne Academy -1.3 +3.7 -2.2 +12.8
Ratton School +0.0 -2.3 -0.8 -12.0
The Cavendish School +3.1 +6.3 +1.1 -32.1
Gildredge House -1.3 -9.3 -0.2 -24.5
St Catherine's College +3.9 +8.5 +1.3 +1.4
The Turing School -3.4 -6.4 +2.9 +33.2
Table 2: Attainment 8 of each school’s disadvantaged pupils, year by year (2025/26 provisional), with the size of the group in 2024/25. Small groups make single years unreliable.
School 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 Disadvantaged pupils, 2024/25
The Cavendish School 44.2 41.6 40.6 41.3 39.1 44
The Eastbourne Academy 33.7 29.5 24.2 32.3 29.7 67
Gildredge House 31.0 31.5 36.6 35.1 37.1 33
Ratton School 43.7 32.6 31.3 29.8 34.2 55
St Catherine's College 45.2 35.5 39.0 38.4 36.1 47
The Turing School 23.3 22.1 24.3 56

6 Is there an Eastbourne effect?

The district test of the East Sussex document adds a district level to the national model, with and without each school’s own record.

Table 3: The Eastbourne district effect, over and above East Sussex’s, with 95% intervals.
Specification Outcome Effect (%) 95% interval Significant
Published specification All pupils +0.3 -3.1 to +3.7 No
Published specification Disadvantaged +0.1 -3.9 to +4.2 No
Published specification Non-disadvantaged +0.4 -2.6 to +3.4 No
Published specification Absence (stage 1) -8.2 -14.5 to -1.3 Yes
With a school term All pupils +0.1 -3.2 to +3.4 No
With a school term Disadvantaged -0.1 -3.1 to +3.1 No
With a school term Non-disadvantaged +0.3 -3.0 to +3.8 No
With a school term Absence (stage 1) -1.2 -6.8 to +4.7 No

On the published model, Eastbourne differs from the rest of East Sussex for absence (-8.2%). With each school’s own record in the model, none of that remains: the difference belongs to particular schools, not to the district as a place.

Figure 5: Each school’s own persistent effect, from the model with a school term: Attainment 8 for all pupils, and absence beyond what its intake predicts.

7 Absence

Figure 6: Overall absence, autumn and spring terms, 2016/17 to 2025/26. Sessions-weighted; 2019/20 not collected.
  • 8.8% absence in autumn and spring 2025/26, against 8.0% for England and 8.9% for East Sussex. A year earlier it was 8.7%.
  • Persistent absence is 23.1%, against 21.6% for England.
  • Against its intake, the district’s schools run 0.40 points below what their pupils’ profiles predict, on average over 2021/22 to 2024/25.
Table 4: Each school’s absence against what its intake predicts, mean 2021/22 to 2024/25, and its reasons in the latest year (percentage of sessions).
School Absence % Predicted by intake % Above prediction Illness Unauthorised Reduced timetable Suspended
The Turing School 14.9 11.5 +3.4 3.5 6.1 0.09 0.95
The Eastbourne Academy 12.2 11.3 +0.9 3.6 4.4 1.22 1.28
St Catherine's College 9.3 9.2 +0.1 4.2 1.8 0.61 0.34
Ratton School 8.2 9.4 -1.2 4.7 3.2 0.42 0.33
Gildredge House 6.6 9.0 -2.4 4.7 1.0 0.33 0.04
The Cavendish School 6.1 9.4 -3.3 3.0 1.1 0.19 0.02
  • The Turing School runs more than a point above its predicted absence.
  • The Cavendish School, Gildredge House and Ratton School run more than a point below their predictions.

Reduced timetables account for 0.45% of sessions, against 0.29% in England, 1.5 times the national rate. The Eastbourne Academy’s rate is the highest in the district.

Table 5: Predicted Attainment 8 gain if each school’s absence fell to the national school average (2024/25). Indicative only.
School District Absence % FSM % Gain, all pupils Gain, disadvantaged Gain from FSM to area average
The Turing School Eastbourne 15.0 44.8 +4.3 +4.0 +0.7
The Eastbourne Academy Eastbourne 10.8 41.9 +1.9 +2.4 +0.6
Ratton School Eastbourne 9.1 23.3 +0.5 +0.5 +0.0
St Catherine's College Eastbourne 8.7 21.9 +0.1 +0.2 +0.0

4 of the 6 schools are above the national average absence in 2024/25. Bringing them to it would add up to 4.3 points for all pupils, as an indication of scale.

Suspensions were 24.9 episodes per 100 pupils in 2024/25, against 21.2 for England and 28.0 for East Sussex. A rate per 100 pupils counts suspension episodes rather than pupils, and one pupil can be suspended several times in a year, so it is not a percentage of children: 8.0 pupils per 100 were suspended at least once, about 3.1 times each, against 7.3 per 100 and 2.9 times in England.

Table 6: Suspension episodes per 100 pupils, pupils suspended at least once per 100, and permanent exclusions, by school, latest year. One pupil can be suspended more than once, so the first rate runs well above the second.
School Pupils Episodes per 100 Pupils suspended per 100 Permanent exclusions
The Eastbourne Academy 800 48.9 13.8 6
St Catherine's College 1072 44.1 12.2 1
The Turing School 765 34.0 9.9 1
Ratton School 1197 22.9 8.6 0
The Cavendish School 1372 7.8 2.8 0
Gildredge House 1168 6.8 4.7 0

8 Contextual league tables

Value added, all pupils: observed Attainment 8 minus the national model’s expectation. 2025/26 is provisional.
School 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 Mean Years
St Catherine's College +5.2 -1.9 +1.1 +0.2 -2.0 +0.5 5
The Eastbourne Academy +0.4 +0.4 -4.0 +2.7 +2.9 +0.5 5
Ratton School -0.3 -0.3 -2.2 -0.3 +2.5 -0.1 5
The Cavendish School +0.6 -0.4 +1.7 -1.3 -3.0 -0.5 5
Gildredge House -4.1 -2.4 -0.3 -1.5 +0.2 -1.6 5
The Turing School -3.4 +1.6 -3.7 -1.9 3
Value added, disadvantaged pupils. Small groups; read across years.
School 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 Mean Years
St Catherine's College +9.3 +0.3 +3.3 +2.6 -1.0 +2.9 5
The Eastbourne Academy +1.2 +2.0 -1.8 +4.2 +2.2 +1.6 5
The Cavendish School +2.2 +1.8 +2.5 +2.8 -2.2 +1.4 5
Ratton School +2.5 -2.7 -2.6 -3.5 +0.9 -1.1 5
The Turing School -2.8 -3.4 -3.6 -3.3 3
Gildredge House -9.9 -8.4 -1.9 -3.1 -1.6 -5.0 5
Value added, non-disadvantaged pupils.
School 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 Mean Years
The Eastbourne Academy -0.0 +0.8 -5.0 +2.3 +5.3 +0.7 5
The Turing School -2.3 +7.0 -3.4 +0.5 3
Ratton School -1.0 -0.4 -2.5 +0.1 +2.5 -0.3 5
St Catherine's College +3.8 -2.8 +0.1 -0.8 -2.0 -0.4 5
The Cavendish School +0.3 -0.6 +1.7 -2.4 -2.8 -0.8 5
Gildredge House -3.0 -0.0 +0.1 -1.3 +0.2 -0.8 5

9 Questions for discussion

  1. Disadvantaged pupils. They average 33.2 in Eastbourne against 37.8 in England, and the district’s schools take 0.2 points for them beyond what the model expects. What do St Catherine’s College and The Eastbourne Academy, above expectation for these pupils, do that the district’s other schools could share?
  2. Attendance is not the district’s main lever. Absence makes almost no difference to its results against England, though The Turing School runs more absence than its intake predicts.
  3. Schools, not the place. The district’s apparent effect belongs to particular schools; the question is what is happening in them.
  4. Practice. In Eastbourne, reduced timetables run at 1.5 times the national rate. These are choices made within schools, and neighbouring districts make them differently.
  5. The county. East Sussex’s own effect for disadvantaged pupils is +0.9% (60th of 151), not distinguishable from zero. The county questions in the East Sussex document apply here as well.

Notes on method

Methods and sources are those of the East Sussex document. District membership comes from each school’s postcode (ONS postcode directory, via postcodes.io). Absence and exclusions for the district are summed over its schools, including any predecessor or successor URNs. This document is generated from templates/district_report.qmd by R/20_district_reports.R, from data built by R/17_area_analysis.R, R/18_district_effects.R and R/19_trust_effects.R. Its format is described in AREA_REPORTS.md.