The Department for Education鈥檚聽聽requires governing boards to 鈥渞aise standards for all children 鈥 [including] 鈥 those receiving free school meals and those who are more broadly disadvantaged.鈥
While a seemingly straight forward duty, the inclusion of the word 鈥渄isadvantage鈥 is problematic. Even the experts struggle to define the term. In an academic paper exploring the concept,聽聽that 鈥渄isadvantage鈥 is 鈥渂road and non-specific鈥, denoting a 鈥渃omplex phenomenon that results from the interaction of deep-seated economic, social, and educational factors.鈥
In this context, the requirement to 鈥渞aise standards for 鈥 those who are more broadly disadvantaged鈥 suddenly becomes a rather difficult ask for the governing board.
The social and political obstacles to defining disadvantage
Our latest research report,聽Spotlight on Disadvantage: The role and impact of governing boards in spending, monitoring and evaluating the pupil premium, revealed that many governing boards define disadvantage as 鈥those eligible for the pupil premium鈥. This includes those pupils who have been eligible for free school meals in the last six years and those looked after by the local authority at any point in their lives. A 鈥渟ervice premium鈥, which is often incorporated under the umbrella term of the 鈥減upil premium鈥, is also given to schools for pupils whose parents serve, or have served, in the armed forces.
There is a wealth of evidence to show that these groups have worse outcomes than their peers. Furthermore, choosing finite parameters to define 鈥榙isadvantage鈥 is undoubtedly an effective means of narrowing the term down to something more meaningful and measurable.
A persuasive counterargument is that defining 鈥榙isadvantage鈥 simply as those eligible for the pupil premium聽. For instance, this definition ultimately misses other variables which affect whether a pupil is likely to achieve high educational outcomes, including, but not limited to, parental education level, parental occupation, geographical location, neighbourhood deprivation, whether a child has low prior attainment, whether a child speaks English as an additional language, and whether a child has special educational needs.
Compounding this issue, if a pupil qualifies for the pupil premium on paper, but their family does not register them for FSMs (for whatever reason, including聽) they will not be eligible for the funding.聽聽in 2012 found that 14% of eligible pupils were not claiming FSMs and, therefore, were not attracting pupil premium funding for their school. More recently, in 2016, the聽聽that the 鈥減roportion of eligible pupils who received free lunches had dropped from nearly 87% to 83% in the course of a year鈥.
Finally, defining disadvantage is particularly difficult as聽. In this regard, disadvantage may be seen as a complex spectrum. Evidence suggests that those children who are聽persistently disadvantaged聽(which, disproportionally, are children in the north of England), are more likely to face negative consequences of their social situation than those who 鈥榙ip鈥 in and out of disadvantage depending on family circumstances. Furthermore,聽evidence shows that, on average, those from white British backgrounds who are eligible for the pupil premium are generally more affected by disadvantage than those with English as an additional language.
All of these reasons are why many in the research community argue that pupil premium eligibility is too much of a 鈥樷 and should not be used as the primary indicator of disadvantage. Interestingly, such an indicator is by no means universally recognised in the international community. For instance, in contrast to England, 聽focus solely on the education level of parents to distribute funds to disadvantaged pupils.
What scope do the governing board have to rethink disadvantage?
Given these arguments, schools can be forgiven for choosing their own views of disadvantage beyond the parameters of the 鈥減upil premium鈥. Indeed, 14% of governors/trustees that responded to the 芭乐视频下载app聽Spotlight on Disadvantage聽survey explained that their school included several other criterion beyond pupil premium eligibility within their definition of disadvantage.
In truth, any attempt to provide a concrete definition of a 鈥渄isadvantaged child鈥 is politically problematic. Defining what makes a 鈥渄isadvantaged pupil鈥 and what makes a 鈥渘on-disadvantaged pupil鈥 is a value-laden judgement with social and policy implications; inevitably excluding certain vulnerable groups at the expense of others while risking the stigmatisation of those considered disadvantaged.
So where does this leave governing boards in their obligation to 鈥渞aise standards for 鈥 those who are more broadly disadvantaged鈥? Well, defining disadvantage is somewhat of a catch-22. No definition will completely suffice, yet failing to establish clear parameters restricts the schools鈥 ability to focus their support towards the most vulnerable groups.
This brings us full circle and, inevitably, it raises the question: is pupil premium eligibility聽谤别补濒濒测听that bad a definition of disadvantage on a national level? It is far from perfect, but there is indisputable evidence showing that pupils who are eligible for the pupil premium have worse outcomes than those that are not eligible.
In this respect, governing boards may be better off viewing the pupil premium as a聽systematic聽attempt to combat disadvantage on a national scale rather than something designed to combat all types and manifestations of disadvantage in each individual school. Regardless of whether there are other types of disadvantaged, governing boards need to show that the pupils for whom the premium is intended are making progress. If the government deem pupil premium funding to be having little impact on eligible pupils, schools may not be receiving the funding by the end of this parliament.
This still does not mean that the governing board cannot rethink disadvantage outside of the pupil premium. At an individual school level, the聽Spotlight on Disadvantage聽survey revealed that 46% of the governing boards surveyed allocated funding above and beyond the pupil premium for disadvantaged pupils. Here, the governing boards have more freedom and should not feel pressurised to accept a definition of disadvantage which does not fit the context of their school.
Ultimately, the term 鈥榙isadvantaged鈥 is value laden and inseparable from the context it finds itself in. Therefore, those closest to the school are best placed to know what type of 鈥榙isadvantage鈥 their pupils face. In regards to disadvantage not covered through the pupil premium, as the individuals that know their school(s) best and the community it serves, governing boards and senior leaders are entitled to say to others: 鈥渨hile that definition of disadvantage might work for you, it does not work for us鈥.