Pupil Premium Research Articles

Transitions from primary to secondary school in Greater Manchester: A qualitative exploration of the perspectives of Year 6 children who receive pupil premium funding

AbstractPrimary–secondary school transitions are widely recognised as pivotal developmental periods, which can have positive and negative longitudinal implications on the education, wellbeing and mental health of children. Yet few studies have sought the voice of children through interviews, and especially children in receipt of pupil premium funding (PPF) (a government grant given to schools in England to support disadvantaged pupils from low socio‐economic status [SES] backgrounds). This is concerning, given that children who receive PPF are at greater risk of poorer academic, social and emotional outcomes and exclusion during this time. Our study aims to explore the perspectives of such children to better understand their lived experience of primary–secondary school transitions. The sample consisted of nine Year 6 (last year of primary school in England) children who received PPF, recruited from two schools in Greater Manchester. The children participated in semi‐structured Zoom interviews. Transcribed audio‐recordings were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. The children discussed a mixture of contrasting feelings towards the emotional, social, academic and practical aspects of primary–secondary school transitions. In addition, children highlighted the supportive value of having older siblings, cousins and friends already at secondary school and discussed the range of support that had been offered by their schools and how this could be improved. The study makes a unique empirical contribution to understanding the lived experiences of children in receipt of PPF leading up to primary–secondary school transitions. In doing so, we make a unique theoretical contribution to multiple and multi‐dimensional transitions theory in exploring the impact of wider social factors, such as SES, on primary–secondary school transitions experiences. This understanding has important implications for educational policy and practice, in addition to further research, especially given the methodological, theoretical and conceptual considerations discussed.

The pattern of socio-economic segregation between schools in England 1989 to 2021: The pupil premium, Universal Credit, and Covid-19 eras

This paper presents an analysis of the extent to which poor pupils in England are clustered in schools with others like them. It is based on a segregation index of pupils eligible for free school meals for every year for which official national data is available. The trend over time has been published before up to 2019, and this paper extends the analysis to 2021, covering both the Covid-19 era so far and the beginning of transitional arrangements for Universal Credit, which have led to a substantial increase in the number of pupils eligible for free school meals. Results show that the segregation of poor pupils between secondary schools has continued to decline annually – a decline that started with the onset of Pupil Premium funding. This decline in segregation has not occurred for other possible indicators of disadvantage, such as pupils having a special educational need or disability, which are not addressed by Pupil Premium funding. Clustering disadvantaged pupils together in parts of a national school system has been linked to worse pupil outcomes overall, lower aspirations, less ethnic cohesion, and reduced trust in society by students. So, this ongoing reduction is encouraging, and is likely to lead to a lower poverty attainment gap in academic outcomes. However, the reduction in 2020 and 2021 is “false” to some extent, based mostly on a sudden increase in the number of pupils officially classed as poor, rather than an improvement in their distribution or evenness. It is, therefore, important to retain Pupil Premium funding or something like it for the time being to see what happens to the attainment gap. And the apparent success of this funding scheme could have implications for school systems worldwide that value fairness in the provision of national opportunities for education.

Make the most of pupil premium funding to tackle disadvantage

Make the most of pupil premium funding to tackle disadvantage

Problematising flagship ‘disadvantage’ policies in English schools: agenda setting and incoherence in the absence of an over-arching theory of change

ABSTRACT This paper draws on research conducted in four state schools with sixth forms to problematise two flagship ‘disadvantage’ policy agendas in the English context: the Pupil Premium (focusing on the narrowing of attainment gaps) and widening participation (focusing on fairer university access). While such ‘priority’ policies necessarily incorporate the promise of change, it argues that multiple forms of incoherence militate against this, including: their relative agenda-setting power in a highly marketised system; the contested, constitutive power of different proxy indicators; competing policy preferences that under-attend to the intersections between educational opportunities and material disadvantage. In contrast, interviews with school staff highlighted the transformative potential of lived experiences of disadvantage and reinforced the importance of adopting a wider lens than that of the school. The paper concludes that the absence of an over-arching theory of change is part of ‘the problem’ and it suggests where the mapping of one might begin.

Breaks in the chain: using theories of social practice to interrogate professionals’ experiences of administering Pupil Premium Plus to support looked after children

ABSTRACT In England, Pupil Premium Plus is additional funding to help address the educational attainment gap experienced by looked after children. This paper explores the experiences of virtual school heads and designated teachers (n = 140) as they access Pupil Premium Plus-related information, guidance and training to support their practice; navigate the complexities of the Personal Education Plan (PEP) process; and measure the impact of Pupil Premium Plus-funded interventions. We explain professionals’ experiences using insights from social practice theories, and argue that the process of supporting the educational outcomes of looked after children via Pupil Premium Plus is made up of context- and audience-dependent ‘social practices’. When the social practices are aligned, virtual school heads and designated teachers may be effectively able to support looked after children, whereas barriers may emerge when social practices become disjointed. We conclude this paper by arguing that for Pupil Premium Plus to support educational outcomes of looked after children effectively, professionals need to reflect on their own cultures and practices.

What is the evidence on the impact of Pupil Premium funding on school intakes and attainment by age 16 in England?

AbstractThe use of targeted additional funding for school‐age education, intended to improve student attainment, is a widespread phenomenon internationally. It is slightly rarer that the funding is used to improve attainment specifically for the most disadvantaged students – often via trying to attract teachers to poorer areas, or encouraging families to send their children to school. It is even rarer that funding is used to try and reduce the attainment gap between economically disadvantaged students and their peers, and almost unheard for the funding to be intended to change the nature of school intakes by making disadvantaged students more attractive to schools. These last two were the objectives set for Pupil Premium funding to schools in England. The funding started in 2011, for all state‐funded schools at the same time, so there is no easy counterfactual to help assess how effective it has been. The funding is a considerable investment every year and it is therefore important to know whether it works as intended. This paper presents a time series analysis of all students at secondary school in England from 2006, well before the funding started, until 2019, the most recent year for which there are attainment figures. It overcomes concerns that the official attainment gap between students labelled disadvantaged and the rest is sensitive to demographic, economic, legal and other concurrent policy changes. It does this by looking at a stable group of long‐term disadvantaged students. It is argued that this group would have attracted Pupil Premium funding if it had existed in any year and under any economic conditions. After 2010, these long‐term disadvantaged pupils became substantially less clustered in specific schools in their first year and throughout their remaining school life. This improvement cannot be explained by economic or other factors used in this paper, and so it looks as though the Pupil Premium has been effective here. The picture for the attainment gap at age 16 is more mixed. It is partly confused by changes in the grading of assessments in 2014 and again from 2016. The reasons why the improvements are less clear than at primary school are discussed, and they involve the nature of evidence available to secondary schools to help them improve the attainment of their most disadvantaged students.

Negating the Narrative: Moving Away from the Rhetoric of ‘Lost Learning’ in Providing Additionality to Ensure Equity for Disadvantaged Students during School Closures in England

Two periods of compulsory school closure in England as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated the adoption of virtual teaching and learning environments. Although such platforms had already been launched in English schools prior to March 2020, when schools closed, their usage by classroom teachers had not been established. Pupil premium funding to support disadvantaged students in English schools began in 2011, with the aim of narrowing the academic performance gap between these students and their peers. Less likely to do as well at school as their peers, the consequent narrative around these children at school is one of ‘catch-up’, a narrative which grew during the pandemic with debate around ‘lost learning’ amongst all children, but particularly, the disadvantaged. The enduring assumption that these children will do less well than their peers, rather than be less likely to, was thus further compounded. This paper considers one secondary school English department’s provision of additionality to support equity during the pandemic, its success and lessons which might be applied in the future.

Segregation and the attainment gap for permanently disadvantaged pupils in England

ABSTRACT This paper examines the link between the clustering of long-term disadvantaged students within schools, and the attainment gap at age 11 between these disadvantaged students and the rest. The data comes from the National Pupil Database for England from 2006 to 2019. The analysis focuses on students who would go on to be officially recognised as living in relative poverty for all 11 years from when they arrived at primary school up until age 16. This subset of disadvantaged students is a stable proportion of around 4.4% of each age cohort. They would have attracted Pupil Premium funding for their schools in any year, if it had been available, and despite any legal or economic changes over time. Comparing the educational outcomes for this group in comparison to their peers therefore provides a fair test of the impact of the Pupil Premium funding policy on the clustering of the poorest children, and their attainment relative to their peers. The segregation of long-term disadvantaged students between primary schools declined nationally after the policy was introduced. This happened in all economic regions, especially in areas with higher proportions of such pupils, for all ethnic groups, and for students with a special educational need or disability. This drop is strongly correlated over time and place with a corresponding decline in the attainment gap at age 11. It provides potentially strong evidence of the benefit of a targeted additional funding scheme like the Pupil Premium, with implications for how such funds are best used worldwide.

Assessing the impact of Pupil Premium funding on primary school segregation and attainment

ABSTRACT Pupil Premium funding has been provided to schools in England since 2011, to reduce socio-economic segregation, and the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers. There is little evidence it works. Some stakeholders are now considering whether funding should cease, or have a new objective. Evaluating the impact of such a funding policy is not easy because the relevant outcomes are sensitive to demographic, economic and other concurrent policy changes. These issues are addressed using the National Pupil Database, comparing the poverty gap in primary schools from 2006 to 2019, focusing on pupils who would have attracted Pupil Premium funding, if it existed, in any year and under any economic conditions. After 2010, the segregation of long-term disadvantaged pupils and their peers reduced in Years 1 and 6, and their attainment improved relative to their peers at a ges 7 and 11. However, assessments changed after 2014 and this complicates the pattern. A regression model suggests that relative attainment for poor pupils improved markedly in the Pupil Premium era, even in regions like the North of England which have faced criticism for apparently “failing“ their poor pupils. We argue for retaining the Pupil Premium policy.

Oracy education must be a priority for schools

The speaking skills of some pupils have been affected by national lockdowns, especially among our Pupil Premium cohort. Campaigners are urging government and schools to put oracy at the heart of recovery

Back to School - and After

School closure has been damaging to the mental health of some children and to the educational progress of many. The long-term costs to individuals and the economy of this hiatus in schooling can be exaggerated, but are still likely to be substantial. The costs of the damage are likely to have fallen most heavily on poorer or otherwise disadvantaged children, and the government is understandably taking particular note of this in designing policies to assist educational recovery. As with the NHS, the COVID-19 crisis has exposed longstanding problems in the educational system, and there is a strong case for government policy to look beyond short-term recovery and temporary changes. Such policies as changing the structure of the school year and school day length, which have been advocated for years, could now be brought forward. The government could consider changing the ages, at which children enter and leave primary school, review teaching practices in light of new technologies and changes in how children learn. It should become easier for a wider range of people to become teachers, and the requirement for Qualified Teacher Status could be dropped. In the short run, some form of examination is needed for A-levels and other terminal qualifications, rather than reliance on teacher assessment. In the longer term, the National Curriculum could be decluttered, and there could be only a limited number of examinations at the age of sixteen. A-levels might usefully revert to a modular structure. The Pupil Premium could be given to parents to spend on tutorial support or other relevant educational provision. Experiments with education vouchers could also be encouraged, with the ultimate objective of making it possible for the distinction between state and independent schools to be broken down.

The exploration of the dispersal of British military families in England following the Strategic Defence and Security Review 2010.

Strictly relying on publicly available data, this study depicts and quantifies the spatial pattern of England’s military families with dependent children. England’s Service Pupil Premium for the financial years between 2011 and 2019 is used as a proxy variable to estimate the density of service children at the parliamentary constituency level. Methodologically, the approach allows an assessment of spatial movements of a population or a cohort. The results inform policy makers by providing evidence-based findings about the location of England’s military families and how the distribution has changed between 2011 and 2019. The results show empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that, at a macro scale, beyond commuting distance, England’s military families are becoming increasingly dispersed. We argue that the findings unveil spatial dynamics that have practical issues of housing, employment, and education regarding military families.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the GoActive intervention to increase physical activity among UK adolescents: Acluster randomised controlled trial.

Less than 20% of adolescents globally meet recommended levels of physical activity, and not meeting these recommended levels is associated with social disadvantage and rising disease risk. The determinants of physical activity in adolescents are multilevel and poorly understood, but the school's social environment likely plays an important role. We conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of a school-based programme (GoActive) to increase moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) among adolescents. Non-fee-paying, co-educational schools including Year 9 students in the UK counties of Cambridgeshire and Essex were eligible for inclusion. Within participating schools (n = 16), all Year 9 students were eligible and invited to participate. Participants were 2,862 13- to 14-year-olds (84% of eligible students). After baseline assessment, schools were computer-randomised, stratified by school-level pupil premium funding (below/above county-specific median) and county (control: 8 schools, 1,319 participants, mean [SD] participants per school n = 165 [62]; intervention: 8 schools, 1,543 participants, n = 193 [43]). Measurement staff were blinded to allocation. The iteratively developed, feasibility-tested 12-week intervention, aligned with self-determination theory, trained older adolescent mentors and in-class peer-leaders to encourage classes to conduct 2 new weekly activities. Students and classes gained points and rewards for engaging in any activity in or out of school. The primary outcome was average daily minutes of accelerometer-assessed MVPA at 10-month follow-up; a mixed-methods process evaluation evaluated implementation. Of 2,862 recruited participants (52.1% male), 2,167 (76%) attended 10-month follow-up measurements; we analysed the primary outcome for 1,874 participants (65.5%). At 10 months, there was a mean (SD) decrease in MVPA of 8.3 (19.3) minutes in the control group and 10.4 (22.7) minutes in the intervention group (baseline-adjusted difference [95% confidence interval] -1.91 minutes [-5.53 to 1.70], p = 0.316). The programme cost £13 per student compared with control; it was not cost-effective. Overall, 62.9% of students and 87.3% of mentors reported that GoActive was fun. Teachers and mentors commented that their roles in programme delivery were unclear. Implementation fidelity was low. The main methodological limitation of this study was the relatively affluent and ethnically homogeneous sample. In this study, we observed that a rigorously developed school-based intervention was no more effective than standard school practice at preventing declines in adolescent physical activity. Interdisciplinary research is required to understand educational-setting-specific implementation challenges. School leaders and authorities should be realistic about expectations of the effect of school-based physical activity promotion strategies implemented at scale. ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN31583496.

Spending the pupil premium: What influences leaders’ decision-making?

Introduced in England in 2011, the pupil premium policy was an ambitious reform aimed at tackling the persistent attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their more affluent peers. The policy provides school leaders with the professional autonomy to determine how pupil premium funding should be used. This article examines the decision-making processes and influences involved in the use of these additional resources. We conducted interviews with 21 school leaders from different contexts across the Midlands in order to investigate the approaches, perceptions and experiences that influenced their engagement with the pupil premium policy. The findings highlight the range of strategies employed to determine how the funding should be used and the factors that influence the decisions made. Our data also indicate the tensions and challenges that are experienced by school leaders in relation to effective use of the funding. We conclude with recommendations for policymakers and practitioners in relation to the requirement for high-quality, accessible information to support pupil premium use, the role of accountability mechanisms and the need for wider societal reform in order to tackle social disadvantage.

How to achieve premium value

It's vital the pupil premium strikes a balance between whole-school and individual support, says expert

The Early Years Pupil Premium: practitioners’ perspectives on if the funding supports ‘closing the gap’ for looked after children?

ABSTRACT The paper investigates practitioners’ perspectives on the Early Years Pupil Premium (EYPP) and its use for looked after children (LAC) in England. The paper considers what practitioners in one Local Authority (LA) think now that the funding has passed its infancy. Specifically, does EYPP funding help ‘close the gap’ for LAC? Q-methodology was used to investigate 19 practitioners’ perspectives; all were owners or managers in 19 different settings. This approach was complemented with a questionnaire survey and focus groups held with 14 practitioners in 13 different settings in the same LA. The findings revealed that practitioners consistently focused on whether all LAC should be eligible for this funding and/or whether the funding is able to ‘close the gap’ between them and their peers. It concludes that EYPP funding can support ‘closing the gap’ for LAC with developmental delay, but its purpose needs to be clarified.

Effectiveness of the GoActive intervention to increase physical activity in adolescents aged 13–14 years: a cluster randomised controlled trial

BackgroundAdolescent physical activity levels are low and are associated with rising disease risk and social disadvantage at increasingly early ages. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of a school-based programme (GoActive) to increase moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) in adolescents. MethodsIn this cluster randomised controlled trial, non-fee-paying, co-educational schools including Year 9 students (aged 13–14 years) in Cambridgeshire or Essex, UK, were eligible for inclusion; within participating schools, all Year 9 students were eligible. Schools were computer-randomised (1:1) to either the control or intervention group, stratified by school-level pupil premium (below vs above county-specific median) and county (Cambridgeshire vs Essex). Measurement staff were masked to allocation; investigators were not masked because of necessary school contact. The iteratively developed, feasibility-tested and refined 12-week intervention trained older adolescents (mentors) and in-class peer leaders to encourage classes to undertake two new weekly activities. Training sessions consisted of an initial session between facilitators and mentors lasting at least 1 h followed by six 30 min meetings every week during the first six weeks and meetings approximately every 2 weeks thereafter. Mentors met with peer leaders weekly. Students and classes gained points and rewards for activity in and out of school. The primary outcome was mean daily minutes of accelerometer-assessed MVPA at 10 months post-intervention, assessed in the complete case population (ie, all students who had a 10-month post-intervention measurement and [in the intervention group] wore the accelerometer) under the intention-to-treat principle, and in the per-protocol population (ie, students who also reported weekly class activities and logged points). Ethical approval was granted from the University of Cambridge Psychology Ethics Committee (PRE.126.2016). This study is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials registry, number ISRCTN31583496. FindingsOf 103 eligible schools, 16 enrolled in the study. 2862 Year 9 students were eligible, of whom 1319 were in the eight control schools (mean of 165 [SD 62] students per school) and 1543 were in the eight intervention schools (mean 193 [SD 43] per school; intraclass correlation coefficient=0·03 for school-level MVPA). 2167 (76%) of 2862 students had a 10-month post-intervention measurement; we analysed the primary outcome in 1874 participants (65%) due to expected low levels of accelerometer wear (871 [66%] in control schools; 1003 [65%] in intervention schools); analyses were adequately powered to detect an effect. At 10 months, time spent doing MVPA did not differ significantly between adolescents at intervention schools versus those at control schools (mean difference –1·91 min [95% CI –5·53 to 1·70]; p=0·32). In the per protocol population (285 students in intervention schools and 871 in control schools at 10 months), results were similar (mean difference –1·87 min [–6·80 to 3·06]; p=0·47]). InterpretationThe rigorously developed school-based GoActive intervention was no more effective than standard school practice at increasing adolescent physical activity. Authorities should be cautious about commissioning and proliferating school-based health promotion strategies and realistic about expectations of effect. FundingUK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research Programme (13/90/18).

The difficulties of judging what difference the Pupil Premium has made to school intakes and outcomes in England

ABSTRACT Pupil Premium funding has been provided to schools in England since 2011, to help overcome socio-economic segregation between schools, and reduce the poverty attainment gap. Yet there is little evidence such an approach is effective. Some important stakeholders are considering whether Pupil Premium should stop or be re-routed. It is therefore essential to know whether the policy has helped in the eight years since its inception. Evaluating the impact of such a funding policy is fraught with difficulties because of changes over time in the economy, legal definitions, prevalence of disadvantage, and metrics used. Previous research has generally ignored these, and the role of length and depth of disadvantage. Hence, previous estimates of the attainment gap are insecure. This paper introduces a new analysis, based on the National Pupil Database that considers changes in the prevalence of FSM-eligibility, private school attendance, GDP and the duration of individual poverty. Net of such factors, the results show that segregation has declined unexpectedly since 2011, suggesting that the Pupil Premium may be working. The policy should continue, while research looks at the long-term impact on the poverty gap. Meanwhile, the funding could be re-calibrated to be fairer to areas with longer-term disadvantage.

A case study of effective Pupil Premium practice

Oriel High School has achieved some notable success with its Pupil Premium strategy. Helen Everitt and Ryan Sallows reflect on some of the key tenets of the school's work

Three tenets of effective Pupil Premium practice

For this Best Practice Focus, Matt Bromley describes three steps of Pupil Premium practice – touching upon identifying barriers, planning solutions, success criteria, evaluating impact, early intervention, language and literacy, cultural capital, literacy, numeracy, and transition