This report summarises the key findings from the Government's National Child Measurement Programme (NCMP) for England, 2015-16 school year. It 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 2015-16.
National Child Measurement Programme - England, 2015-16Official statistics, National statistics
- Publication Date:
- 3 Nov 2016
- Geographic Coverage:
- Geographical Granularity:
- Regions, Local Authorities
- Date Range:
- 01 Sep 2015 to 31 Aug 2016
England, 2015-16 school year
- Over a fifth of reception children were overweight or obese. In year 6 it was over a third.
- The prevalence of obesity has increased since 2014/15 in both reception and year 6.
- In reception it increased to 9.3 per cent from 9.1 per cent, and in year 6 to 19.8 per cent from 19.1 per cent.
- In reception obesity prevalence was lower than in 2006/07. In year 6 obesity prevalence was higher than in 2006/07 but the early years of the NCMP are known to be an underestimate for obesity prevalence for this older year group.1
- Obesity prevalence was higher for boys than girls in both age groups.
- Obesity prevalence for children living in the most deprived areas in both age groups was more than double that of those living in the least deprived areas.
- The deprivation gap as measured by the differences in obesity prevalence between the most and least deprived areas has increased over time.
- Obesity prevalence varied by local authority. For reception this ranged from 5.1 per cent in Richmond upon Thames to 14.7 per cent in Middlesbrough.
- In year 6 the range was from 11.0 per cent in Richmond upon Thames, to 28.5 per cent in Barking and Dagenham. ___________________________________________________________
1 It is likely that year 6 obesity prevalence in the first years of the NCMP (2006/07 to 2008/09) were underestimates due to low participation. This, and the impact of other improvements in data quality, should be considered when making comparisons over time. More details in annex B.