Introducing a pupil premium will be neither quick nor simple, as Sam Ellis explains.

Making a meal of it?

I remember going shopping with my mother in Manchester in the 50s when I was still at primary school. She told me stories about her family using the pawnbroker to borrow money back in the 20s. Given that she attended Dark Lane Ragged School in Ardwick, I suspect that she would have qualified for a pupil premium if one existed. Having said that, she did not underachieve, leaving school with her ‘matric’, the 20s equivalent of 5 A* to C grades including maths and English.

The pupil premium is high on the political agenda: “We will fund a significant premium for disadvantaged pupils from outside the schools budget by reductions in spending elsewhere.” ( The Coalition: Our programme for government, section 26, second bullet). The precise meaning of the terms ‘significant’, ‘disadvantaged’, ‘schools budget’ and ‘elsewhere’ have yet to be defined, leaving some wriggle-room in what looks like a period of bone-scraping cuts.

Identifying disadvantage

There are other straws in the current wind of change. It appears that ministers are keen on simplification. It also appears from the speed with which things are happening that a measured approach to anything is out of the question. These things interact with the key views emerging from discussion of the pupil premium at ASCL Council in June.

At Council it was clear that the principle of additional funding for schools with disadvantaged learners was well supported. The identification of disadvantage via a proxy indicator, such as free school meals (FSM) or IDACI (income deprivation affecting children index), was discussed. The issues were then raised of service children, who do not register in these indicators, and poor children, similar to my mother in the 20s, who do not underachieve.

The consensus was that the indicator(s) must have fine enough gradation to identify small groups and pockets of pupils; but that it must be for schools to decide how to use the allocated funding to help disadvantaged learners improve.

What does seem clear is that schools in receipt of additional funding must be able to demonstrate its impact: “We will promote the reform of schools in order to ensure that new providers can enter the state school system in response to parental demand; that all schools have greater freedom over the curriculum; and that all schools are held properly to account.” ( The Coalition: Our programme for government, section 26, first bullet.)

The principle of a national funding formula with a pupil premium element seems a logical step and certainly fits with ASCL policy, as long as the baseline provision is sufficient for purpose. This draws us nearer to an activity-led funding idea. The fear is that we end up with activity-limiting funding.

Another issue is simplicity, which may be a political requirement. Simplicity is nice if you can get it – E=mc2 is an example – but simplicity does not necessarily mean accuracy.

Whatever mechanism is used to allocate funding it needs to be fair, fit for purpose and transparent, but not necessarily simple. Because a politician finds complexity difficult, it does not follow that school leaders do as well! A political desire for simplicity may work against the core needs for fair funding that follows the learner and a baseline that is sufficient for purpose.

Achievement gap

Research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies indicates that a pupil premium may have to be quite large in order to have a significant impact. The achievement gap between FSM and non-FSM pupils narrowed at a rate of about 0.4 per cent per year, given general funding increases of 4.8 per cent per year over the last six years.

Admittedly things may change when a premium is introduced. And FSM may not be used as an indicator. A pupil premium will allocate funding to specific groups of pupils and not generally. Nevertheless it will be interesting to see how much money eventually correlates with what impact.

I do not believe that anyone would wish additional funding to have anything other than the maximum possible impact. It would be unacceptable if oversimplification and political haste result in significant damage to schools.

The responsibility when a school falls into difficulty will doubtless be laid at the door of its leader. This underlines the other main points from ASCL Council, the need for careful modelling and protection against turbulence.

I hope our political masters take the messages from ASCL on board and act in a measured manner which supports all schools. Ill-considered action motivated from a political rather than an evidence-based view could easily produce a multi-tiered system where some institutions become the modern equivalent of Dark Lane Ragged School.

Designed with IMPACT

© 2024 Association of School and College Leaders | Valid XHTML | Contact us