Calls for extra £640 million to support pupils living in poverty
Data shows that persistently disadvantaged pupils are significantly behind their peers in educational attainment. In 2023, they were behind by almost a year of learning by the end of Key Stage 2 and nearly two years by the end of Key Stage 4. However, the current school funding system does not distinguish between persistent and short-term disadvantage, which means those who are persistently disadvantaged do not receive targeted funding to reflect their level of need.
By 2028-29, primary schools are projected to have 200,000 fewer pupils. A new report by the Education Policy Institute (EPI) suggests that this presents an opportunity to rethink how resources are distributed. The EPI has set out three possible options to reform the school funding system. First, they suggest introducing additional factors into the national funding formula for persistently disadvantaged pupils, setting the amount at £128 for those in primary school and £216 for those in secondary. This would be a relatively low-cost option of £80 million per year – equivalent to increasing average per pupil funding by £11 per pupil overall and £17 per persistently disadvantaged pupil.
Alternatively, targeted funding could be delivered through pupil premium with a rate of £265 in primary schools and £217 in secondary schools. This would represent an additional £23 to average per pupil funding and £41 to persistently disadvantaged pupils. Researchers note that pupil premium is more explicitly intended for disadvantaged pupils – unlike funding via the national funding formula – so in practice the difference between the two may be even greater. In total, this approach would cost £200 million.
The third option involves extending the pupil premium again, but first increasing the value of the pupil premium to restore it to 2014-25 levels in real terms. As a result, pupil premium in primary schools would rise from £1,455 to £1,693 and in secondary schools from £3,035 to £1,218. This would amount to an increase of £308 for persistently disadvantaged pupils in primary school and £255 in secondary. This would cost roughly £640 million. The EPI recommends that the government take this approach, given that pupil premium has not kept pace with rising costs and the attainment gap now stands at its widest point on record. In the longer term, the EPI says the government ‘must not be afraid to take hard decisions about protections and minimum funding levels to ensure that the funding system is responsive to need,’ with a strong rationale for funding for different pupil groups.
★ We know that children living in poverty are more likely to have lower attendance, a higher prevalence of mental health challenges, and increased safeguarding concerns.
Our Pupil Attendance and Safeguarding experts can work with you to identify pupils who are living in poverty and put support measures in place to ensure they can continue to access education and achieve their full potential.
Youth club closures led to lower GCSE results
In 2010, the government launched an austerity programme in an attempt to reduce the country’s deficit. Local councils saw huge cuts to their budgets and, as a result, more than 1,200 youth clubs closed between 2010 and 2023. However, new research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) suggests that youth club closures will create greater societal costs than the sums saved from public spending by their closure.
The IFS shows that when teenagers lost access to a nearby youth club, they performed worse in school. For example, London youths performed nearly 4% of a standard deviation worse in their GCSE exams, equivalent to half a grade in one subject. Those who qualified for free-school meals saw an even greater decline of 12%, roughly corresponding to more than a grade worse in one subject. This has worrying implications, as data shows that individuals who achieve less in their GCSEs go on to earn less over their lifetime.
Similarly, crime brings costs to the community and criminal justice system. Yet, young people who lost access to a youth club were 14% more likely to engage in criminal activity in the six years following closure. Additionally, the research suggests that youth clubs did not only serve as “holding spaces,” as teenagers were not just committing more crimes during the hours they would have otherwise been at the youth club – there was an increase during all hours of the day. This indicates that the structured support and activities offered by youth clubs helped to keep young people out of trouble more generally. Indeed, teenagers reported spending less time on homework after a youth club closed, whilst spending more time on video games and social media. Researchers suggest that ‘youth clubs provide wider development benefits […] that spill over into school performance and wider life.’
Taking these factors into account, researchers estimate that for every £1 saved from closing youth clubs, the societal costs are nearly £3. As policy around youth services evolves, the IFS highlights the potential returns to youth club provision and its importance to young people’s development. The government has pledged to spend £95 million on a new network of ‘Young Futures hubs’, delivering support to teenagers who are struggling with mental health or at risk of being drawn into crime.
Government removes the 20-hour mentor training requirement
Current Initial Teacher Training (ITT) criteria states that mentors of trainee teachers must undertake a minimum of 20 hours training and six hours of annual refresher training. This rule was introduced in September 2024, following the government’s ITT market review. However, ministers have now announced that these minimum training time requirements will be removed with immediate effect.
This follows feedback from the sector warning that schools were struggling to meet the time requirements due to limited capacity. Pepe Di’Iasio, General Secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), welcomes the change, saying that the requirements were ‘completely unworkable for schools already dealing with staff shortages’ and would have served to make the recruitment crisis worse.
Whilst there is no longer a minimum training time requirement, ITT providers are still encouraged to ensure all mentors receive sufficient high-quality training. The ITT criteria will shortly be updated to reflect these changes. Schools will still be able to claim up to 20 hours of funding per mentor this academic year.
One Education is proud to work hand in hand with school leaders, teachers and support staff to enhance the learning experience and elevate our children’s life chances.
Explore our website to learn more about our high-quality consultancy and professional development options. For more information, please get in touch.
Please complete the form below and we will get in contact as soon as we can to help you with your query.
