We have detected that you are using Internet Explorer to visit this website. Internet Explorer is now being phased out by Microsoft. As a result, NHS Digital no longer supports any version of Internet Explorer for our web-based products, as it involves considerable extra effort and expense, which cannot be justified from public funds. Some features on this site will not work. You should use a modern browser such as Edge, Chrome, Firefox, or Safari. If you have difficulty installing or accessing a different browser, contact your IT support team.
National Child Measurement Programme - England, 2010-11, School yearOfficial statistics, National statistics
- Publication Date:
- 14 Dec 2011
- Geographic Coverage:
- Geographical Granularity:
- Regions, Local Authorities
- Date Range:
- 01 Sep 2010 to 31 Aug 2011
An error affecting 2 rows in each of Table 3A and 3B within the NCMP England, 2010/11 Online Tables excel workbook have been identified. The errors affect figures for Central Bedfordshire Unitary Authority (row 216 in each table) and Cornwall Unitary Authority (row 385 in each table). The errors do not affect England level figures or data shown for any other breakdowns within other tables. The pdf file NCMP England, 2010/11 Report is unaffected. The NCMP England, 2010/11 Online Tables excel workbook has been re-issued with a corrected version of Tables 3A and 3B. These tables also have revised footnotes. Please see the errata note for further information. The NHS IC apologises for any inconvenience this may have caused.
This report summarises the key findings from the Government's National Child Measurement Programme (NCMP) for England, 2010/11 school year. The report provides high-level analysis of the prevalence of 'underweight', 'healthy weight', 'overweight', 'obese' and 'overweight and obese combined' children, in Reception (aged 4-5 years) and Year 6 (aged 10-11 years), measured in state schools in England in the school year 2010/11. The National Obesity Observatory (NOO) will produce additional analysis of 2010/11 NCMP data (expected to be published in Spring 2012). The anonymised national dataset will also be made available to Public Health Observatories (PHOs) to allow regional and local analysis of the data. In addition, NOO have included 2010/11 NCMP data (as well as data from previous years) in an e-Atlas - an interactive mapping tool that enables the user to compare a range of indicators, examine correlations and make regional and national comparisons. See 'Look up results for your area' on the right hand side.
- In Reception, over a fifth (22.6%) of the children measured were either overweight or obese. In Year 6, this rate was one in three (33.4%).
- The percentage of obese children in Year 6 (19.0%) is over double that in Reception (9.4%)
- The prevalence of children with a healthy weight was higher in Reception year (76.4%) than Year 6 (65.3%). In both years a higher percentage of girls were at a healthy weight than boys. In Reception year 77.9% of girls and 75.0% of boys were a healthy weight and in Year 6 this was 66.6% and 64.0% respectively.
- The overall prevalence of underweight children is higher in Year 6 (1.3%) than in Reception (1.0%). In Reception, a higher percentage of boys were underweight than girls (1.2% and 0.8% respectively); whereas in Year 6, a higher percentage of girls were underweight than boys (1.5% and 1.1% respectively).
- Obesity prevalence varied by Strategic Health Authority (SHA). South Central SHA has the lowest obesity prevalence for both Reception and Year 6 (8.1% and 16.5% respectively) whilst London SHA showed the highest obesity prevalence (11.1% and 21.9% for each age group respectively).
- As in previous years, a strong positive relationship existed between deprivation and obesity prevalence for children in each age group. The obesity prevalence among Reception year children attending schools in areas in the least deprived decile was 6.9% compared with 12.1% among those living in areas in the most deprived decile. Similarly, obesity prevalence among Year 6 children living in areas in the least deprived decile was 13.8% compared with 23.7% among those living in areas in the most deprived decile.