The pupil premium can help disadvantaged children. But schools must be given the right information to use it effectively
Listening to the government describe its education reforms, you'd be forgiven for thinking that educational equality was in the bag. Now that schools are being paid the pupil premium – an additional £430 for every disadvantaged pupil they teach – ministers seem content that the resources are in place to tackle low achievement among children from poor backgrounds.
Meanwhile, the opposition has attacked the size of the premium. They argue that spending cuts to school budgets, coupled with a bulge in the number of school-age children, mean it cannot possibly make a difference. But as the funds allocated for the pupil premium rise – from £625m this year to £2.5bn by 2014/15 – size won't be the issue. It's how the money is spent that really matters.
If recent history teaches us anything, it is that money on its own is not enough to improve our schools. There are countless examples of well-meaning attempts to raise attainment that have failed to have an impact. Charles Clarke was so taken by technology that he doubled the number of interactive whiteboards in London schools – a move which had no impact on results whatsoever. The previous government also oversaw a massive expansion of support staff working in classrooms – which had the often unintended consequence of lowering the performance of the pupils they were assigned to help.
This is why it is worrying that politicians have focused on the size of the pupil premium, but have largely ignored the question of what it should be spent on. Discussion of the premium is invariably followed by a vague list of possible interventions ranging from one-to-one tuition or a longer school day to paying for better teachers or cultural activities.
For the government, this is a deliberate decision not to interfere with how individual headteachers spend their budgets. But unless schools are provided with the right information and incentives to spend their pupil premium effectively, there is a danger that it will be poorly used. Schools should be more accountable for how they use the premium, having to agree with individual families how it is spent. This would be more robust than simply hoping that schools – with all their other budget pressures and league-table incentives to focus on the more academically able students – use the money where it is intended.
Three things should be prioritised. First, intensive reading catch-up in primary schools can tackle poor literacy, something that is strongly related to later low achievement. Reading Recovery schemes for six-year-olds in London found that, over the course of a year, those taking part had a reading age 14 months more advanced than their counterparts who didn't take part. Second, family support workers can help bridge the crucial divide between a child's home setting and their school. In Liverpool, for example, the Families and Schools Together programme has seen improved attainment and participation in schools. Third, increased formative assessment and peer tutoring can bring about dramatic improvements in results. In a review of more than 800 studies, this sort of feedback between teachers and pupils was found to be the most effective way to improve results.
The pupil premium provides a genuine opportunity to narrow the gap in achievement between pupils from poor homes and their better-off peers. But the money on its own is not enough to bring this about – it's what schools spend it on that really counts. We need to learn from the mistakes and successes of previous programmes, and ensure that schools are held to account for how the money is used.