A critical analysis of the Pupil Premium in the UK

【Abstract】There is already evidence that the attainment gap is narrowing gradually between disadvantaged pupils and their peers since the implementation of the Pupil premium in 2011. However， some arguments against its emerging benefits also should be considered. Therefore， the aim of this essay is to determine whether the Pupil Premium can be better targeted towards overall school and individual pupil achievement.

【Key words】Pupil Premium； disadvantaged pupil； social mobility； addition funding

【作者簡介】屈逸飛，碩士研究生，浙江省杭州市西湖大學。

The OECD （2014） detailed the performance gap， which is evident in the UK， between children from privileged or deprived circumstances. According to the data， there are around 7 million school aged children currently attending publicly funded English primary and secondary institutions with approximately 29% of these coming from deprived backgrounds.

In order to address this issue， in April 2011， the government launched the Pupil Premium strategy， which saw additional funding being given to schools， on a per capita basis， for pupils who were eligible for free-school meals or who had been in local authority care for more than six months （Ofsted， 2012）. The funding is available to mainstream， local authority run schools as well as pupil referral units and special academies for children unable to attend mainstream education. The Young Peoples Learning Centre controls funding payments to normal academies whilst funding for the state maintained primary and secondary schools and the non-mainstream special academies and pupil referral units comes through the local authority （Ofsted， 2012）.

There is some empirical evidence that can be used to support the effectiveness of the Pupil Premium. According to research conducted by The Committee of Public Accounts （2015） which included four years of data， the attainment gap between the disadvantaged groups of students with their peers has the tendency to decrease （Committee of Public Accounts， 2015）. Figure 1 shows the gap in primary schools decreased by 4.7 percentage points and the gap in secondary schools decreased by 1.6 percentage points. In 2014， there is a gap of 13.7 percentage points between the number of disadvantaged pupils and their privileged peers who have achieved， or gained higher than， level 4 in their reading or math. In secondary schools， the gap between disadvantaged and advantaged pupils achieving five or more GCSEs， was 27.4 percentage points. Moreover， the Department of Education expects the gap to close at an increased rate prior to 2023. At that time， the eligible pupils can be funded during their entire education.

Additionally， there are some other measurements that can be used to evaluate the positive effects of the policy. According to research by Causa and Chapuis （2009）， the head teacher pointed out that the premium could increase the aspiration and motivation of disadvantaged pupils to participate in school. The Department for Education is also providing some funding for research on interventions that can help to increase the confidence， self-regulation and resilience of pupils from the disadvantaged groups. As an example， interventions can be used to improve pastoral support for the most vulnerable of pupils. These pupils may have poor punctuality or poor attendance， but， with additional pastoral support， their social and emotional needs can be addressed through the identification of any barriers to learning.

Lastly， it can boost the redistributive power of the educational reform and consequently can generate larger forces for social mobility. In 2007， the Conservative Party developed an education policy that gave individuals greater freedom to create new schools； by coupling this with the Pupil Premium， could encourage the development of specialist schools within deprived areas. These schools， which also includes ‘free schools， would be better equipped to cope with the additional needs of disadvantaged children. These newly developed schools could also help increase the level of attainment for all pupils in neighbouring schools through the encouragement of competition， thereby leading to improved productivity for the entire area. In the majority of cases， the overall funding received by a school is determined by the number of pupils that are enrolled. As such， there is a direct inducement for schools to compete student resources， through the raising of performance standards， in order to gain additional funds. As such， it is probably that the addition of new schools could encourage existing schools to enhance their standards for the sake of being competitive and maintaining existing pupil numbers.

Nevertheless， there are also some practical problems associated with the Pupil Premium. Firstly， it is difficult to accurately assess the financial value to the demand of individual pupils without a complex means test. The CentreForum suggested a model based on free school meals. However， there are inescapable shortcomings in this use of this model. The first disadvantage is that the rate of up-take of free school meals is only around 80%； consequently this policy may disenfranchise many people that it aimed to help. More importantly， this policy may not be able to provide a subtle and precise measurement for the financial situation of students since it is crude in its measurement （Freedman， 2008）. As such， there is a significant risk of disparity between schools with similar pupil numbers. For instance， this policy would provide ?5，000 for children from families with an income of ?10，000 a year but would not provide any support for families with an income of ?15，000. Therefore， it is considered necessary to apply grades to the funding to allow the pupil premium to work. Finally， the current system bases the funding on total combined family income in a similar manner to the Index of Multiple Deprivation. As such， this index could be used as an improved manner of assessment rather than the current situation whereby funding is dependent on the pupils free school meal status. A fault of this policy is that it only considers the influence of income on the education performance and disregards other factors， such as the cultural opportunities in the community as well as the motivation of families， which have significant influences on the childs performance. Since the Pupil Premium is aimed at eliminating the potential influences of background on the educational opportunity and preferences of students， it is necessary to take these factors into consideration when making the policy.

Another practical problem is that some schools may gain more funding than expected while other schools may be worse off due to changes in funding grants， as illustrated in the April 2003 school funding ‘crisis. As a result， the minimum funding guarantee （MFG） was introduced. According to this policy， any formula that would provide the school with per peer funding less than that provided in the previous years would be invalidated. In this regard， it can be found that the current government is paying more emphasis on stability than flexibility and thus the minimum funding guarantee allows only the slow change rate of funding in response to the changes in the composition of pupil population. As such， there are three possible manners in which the Pupil Premium can be introduced. The first is to reintroduce the instability into the system， leading to potentially dramatic fluctuations in school funding from year to year. The second option is to allow schools to select their own pupil mix， thereby giving them control of their budget. The third option is to maintain the minimum funding guarantee. However， all three of these options would decrease the ability of the Pupil Premium to work as an incentive and motivation for schools to improve performance. As a result， the trade off between funding stability and the incentive purpose of Pupil Premium may not reach an equalization point.

As a comparatively recent source of funding and schools are still finding their feet with the governments “pupil premium” scheme and are awaiting full implementation of the program， which is itself still subject to change. For this reason， these findings both tentative and subject to revision and much caution is advised in their interpretation.

This essay has involved a critical analysis of the new funding stream and its potential and actual impact on the achievement ‘gap among disadvantaged students in Britain. Both in theory and – to date – in practice， the pupil premium has proven highly workable and maintains the potential to significantly lift attainment levels and reduce the achievement ‘gap among Britains most disadvantaged students into the future. In the following study， it can be envisaged that fine-grained analysis at the local authority level would be included in the evaluations to identify best （and worst） practices at the school level to establish ‘what works （and doesnt） in activities and interventions. Moreover， more research will be required on an ongoing basis to evaluate impact of the pupil premium overall.

References：

[1]Causa，O.，&Chapuis;，C.（2009）.“Equity in Student Achievement Across OECD Countries”，OECD Economics Department Working Papers，No.708，OECD Publishing.

[2]OECD.（2014）.PISA 2012 Results in Focus：What 15-year-olds Know and What They Can Do With What They Know.Paris：OECD.Available online at：http：//www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-overview.pdf（accessed 18 December 2016）.

[3]Ofsted.（2012）.The Pupil Premium：How Schools are Using the Pupil Premium Funding to Raise Achievement for Disadvantaged Pupils.Available online at：https：//www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-pupil-premium-how-schools-used-thefunding（accessed 18 December 2016）.