This post continues the campaign I have been waging against the Fair Education Alliance, a Teach First-inspired ‘coalition for change in education’ over a proposal in its Report Card 2014 to halve the pupil premium for disadvantaged learners with high prior attainment.
- Inviting Fair Education Alliance members (and Read On. Get On. partners) to defend the proposal or else distance themselves from it and
- Calling on both campaigns to withdraw it.
The Fair Education Alliance was launched by Teach First in June 2014. It aims to:
‘…significantly narrow the achievement gap between young people from our poorest communities and their wealthier peers by 2022’.
There are 27 members in all (see below).
The Alliance plans to monitor progress annually against five Fair Education Impact Goals through an annual Report Card.
The first Report Card, published in December 2014, explains that the Alliance was formed:
‘…in response to the growing demand for a national debate on why thousands of children do not get a fair education’.
The Impact Goals are described thus:
- ‘Narrow the gap in literacy and numeracy at primary school
The Fair Education Alliance is committed to closing the attainment gap between primary schools serving lower income pupils and those educating higher income pupils. Our goal is for this gap to be narrowed by 90 % by 2022.
- Narrow the gap in GCSE attainment at secondary school
The Fair Education Alliance is committed to closing the attainment gap between secondary schools serving lower income pupils and those educating higher income pupils. Our goal is to close 44 % of this gap by 2022.
- Ensure young people develop key strengths, including resilience and wellbeing, to support high aspirations
The Fair Education Alliance is committed to ensuring young people develop non-cognitive skills, including the positive wellbeing and resilience they need to succeed in life. The Alliance will be working with other organisations to develop measurement tools which will allow the development of these key skills to be captured.
- Narrow the gap in the proportion of young people taking part in further education or employment-based training after finishing their GCSEs.
The Fair Education Alliance wants to see an increase in the number of young people from low-income communities who stay in further education or employment-based training once they have completed Key Stage 4. Our goal is for 90% of young people from schools serving low income communities to be in post-16 education or employment-based training by 2022.
- Narrow the gap in university graduation, including from the 25% most selective universities
The Fair Education Alliance is committed to closing the graduation gap between young people from low income backgrounds and those from high income backgrounds. Our goal is for at least 5,000 more pupils from low income backgrounds to graduate each year, with 1,600 of these young people graduating from the most selective universities.’
The problematic proposal relates to Impact Goal 2, focused on the GCSE attainment gap in secondary schools.
The gap in question is between:
- Schools serving low income communities: ‘State schools where 50 % or more of the pupils attending come from the most deprived 30 % of families according to the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI)’ and
- Schools serving high income communities: ‘State schools where 50 % or more of the pupils attending come from the least deprived 30 % of families according to IDACI’.
The Report Card explains that the Alliance is focused on gaps between schools rather than gaps between pupils:
‘…to better capture data that includes those pupils whose families are on a low income but are just above the income threshold for free school meals (the poverty measure in schooling). This measurement also helps monitor the impact of the Alliance’s efforts towards meeting the goals as many members work with and through schools to tackle educational inequality, rather than with individual pupils.’
Under Goal 2, the gap the Alliance wishes to close relates to:
‘Average point score…across eight GCSE subjects, with extra weighting for English and maths’
The measure excludes equivalent qualifications. The baseline gap – derived from 2012/13 data:
‘…is currently 101.7 average points – the difference between 8 C grades and 8 A grades.
The Report Card says this gap has narrowed by 10.5% since 2010/11, but warns that new accountability measures could work in the opposite direction.
The problematic recommendation
The Report Card discusses the distribution of funding to support deprivation, arguing that:
- While the ‘catch up premium’ and pupil premium are welcome, there is some evidence that pupil premium is ‘in some instances plugging gaps in school budgets’ and ‘is not always meeting the needs of those who are falling furthest behind’. (The evidence for this latter statement is from ‘The Tail: How England’s schools fail one in five children and what can be done’).
- Some aspects of disadvantage ‘are given less recognition in the current funding system. ‘For instance FSM Ever 6 does not include low income families who just miss the eligibility criteria for free school meals; and the national funding formula is not able to compensate for geographical isolation and high transport costs which can compound low incomes in parts of the country.’
- ‘Consequently – due to the combination of a high intake of pupils attracting the premium and a currently unequal national school funding formula – there are a small number of very successful schools building up large surpluses. Meanwhile some schools with arguably greater need, where pupils suffer different socioeconomic disadvantages that affect their attainment, are receiving comparatively little extra funding. This hampers their ability to deal with the challenges that their students face and to prevent those vulnerable pupils from falling behind their peers.’
To rectify this problem, the Report Card recommends a significant policy adjustment:
‘Target pupil premium by attainment as well as disadvantage measures: This could be achieved through halving current funding per pupil for FSM Ever 6. Half of this funding could then be re-allocated to pupils eligible for FSM Ever 6 who have low prior attainment. This would give double-weighting to those low income pupils most in need of intervention without raising overall pupil premium spend. The change of funding model would increase school accountability for ‘catching up’ pupils.’
The proposal is advanced in a section about secondary schools; it is unclear whether it is intended to apply equally to primary schools.
Quite what constitutes low prior attainment is never made entirely clear either. One assumes that, for secondary students, it is anything below the scaled score equivalent of KS2 L4b in English (reading and writing), maths or both.
This does of course mean that learners attracting the pupil premium who achieve the requisite scores will be as much short-changed as those who exceed them. Low attainers must take precedence over middle attainers as well as high attainers.
I am minded to extend my campaign to encompass the ‘squeezed middle’, but perhaps I should let someone else bear that standard.
Why this is objectionable
I oppose this proposal because:
- The pupil premium is described as ‘additional funding for publicly funded schools in England to raise the attainment of disadvantaged pupils and close the gap between them and their peers’. Although not a personal funding entitlement – the funding can be aggregated and deployed as schools see fit – schools are held accountable for the impact of the pupil premium on the attainment and progress of the pupils that attract it. There is presently no distinction according to the attainment of these students, but the change proposed by the Alliance would shift the accountability focus to prioritise the achievement and progress of disadvantaged low attainers over disadvantaged middle and high attainers.
- The pupil premium should not be treated as part of the overall school budget. As Ofsted said in its first report on the premium (September 2012):
‘School leaders, including governing bodies, should ensure that Pupil Premium funding is not simply absorbed into mainstream budgets, but instead is carefully targeted at the designated children. They should be able to identify clearly how the money is being spent.’
Since the premium follows the pupil, schools with large numbers of eligible pupils should not have any part of this funding clawed back, nor should those with relatively few eligible pupils have it supplemented.
- If there are problems with the distribution of deprivation funding, this should be addressed through the school funding formula. It is wrong to suggest that a national funding formula would be incapable of compensating for associated sparsity factors. It is for those devising such a formula to determine whether to compensate for pupils not eligible for the premium and factors such as geographical isolation and high transport costs. The Alliance is perfectly entitled to lobby for this. But, in the absence of such a formula, the premium should not be rationed or redistributed to compensate.
- While it might be true that the pupil premium is not always meeting the needs of those with low prior attainment, the same is also true of disadvantaged high attainers. Ofsted’s report ‘The most able students: An update on progress since June 2013’ (March 2015) notes:
‘Our report in 2013 found few instances of the pupil premium being used effectively to support the disadvantaged most able pupils. In the schools visited for this survey, about a third were using the pupil premium funding effectively to target the needs of these pupils.’
- Any decision to double weight pupil premium for disadvantaged learners with low prior attainment would be likely to penalise disadvantaged high attainers. Although schools could theoretically decide to aggregate the funding and spend it differently, the clear intention is that the accountability framework would incentivise correspondingly stronger improvement by low attainers relative to middle and higher attainers. It is hard to understand how this, combined with the redistribution of funding, would help schools to support the latter and so meet Ofsted’s expectations
- There are strong equity arguments against such a redistribution: disadvantaged learners should not be penalised on the basis of their prior attainment. That is not ‘A fair education for all’, nor is it consistent with the ‘sound moral argument for giving every child an equal chance to succeed‘ mentioned in the Executive Summary of the Report Card. There is a fundamental distinction between reflecting the additional costs attributable to supporting all low attainers in the funding formula and redistributing allocations associated with individual disadvantaged learners for the same purpose.
- The Report Card itself recognises the significance of disadvantaged high attainers:
‘As the Level 5 attainment gap highlights, there is not only a need to catch up those ‘slipping behind’ but also an imperative to ‘stretch the top’ when looking at pupils from low income communities. Some schools do well by this measure: sharing best practice in making better than expected levels of progress and stretching the highest attainers is crucial for ensuring all schools can replicate the successes some have already developed.’
How this can be squared with the proposed redistribution of pupil premium is not addressed.
- Such a policy would make the Alliance’s own goal of narrowing the gap in university graduation from the 25% most selective universities much harder to achieve, since it would reduce the likelihood of disadvantaged learners reaching the level of attainment necessary to secure admission.
- There is already additional funding, outside the school funding settlement, dedicated to ‘catch-up’ for those with low prior attainment. Well over £50m per year is allocated to the ‘catch-up premium’ providing £500 per pupil who did not achieve at least KS2 L4 in reading and/or maths. This may be used for individual or small group tuition, summer schools or resources and materials. A further £50m has also been top-sliced from the pupil premium to provide an annual summer schools programme for those at the end of KS2. A core purpose is ‘to help disadvantaged pupils who are behind in key areas such as literacy and numeracy to catch up with their peers’. There is no corresponding funding for disadvantaged high attainers.
- For FY2015/16, the Government adjusted the funding formula to allocate an additional £390m to schools in the least fairly funded authorities. This involved setting a minimum funding level for five pupil characteristics, one being ‘pupils from deprived backgrounds’, another ‘pupils with low attainment before starting at their primary or secondary school’. The values for the latter are £660 for primary schools and £940 for secondary schools. This establishes a precedent for reflecting the needs of low attaining learners in further progress towards a national funding formula.
The campaign to date
I had an inconclusive discussion with Teach First officials on the day the Report Card was published
.Tweets by @giftedphoenix
Subsequently I pressed the Fair Education Alliance spokesperson at Teach First on some specific questions.
I received two undertakings to respond online but nothing has materialised. Finally, on 17 April I requested a response within 24 hours.
Meanwhile though, Sam Freedman published a piece that appeared to accept that such imbalances should be rectified through the schools funding formula:
‘The distribution, in turn, will depend on whether the next Government maintains the pupil premium at the same level – which has shifted funds towards poorer parts of the country – and whether they introduce a “National Funding Formula” (NFF).
At the moment there are significant and historic differences between funding in different parts of the country. Inner London for instance is overfunded, and many schools have significant surpluses, whereas other parts of the country, often more rural, have much tighter margins. The current Government have taken steps to remedy this but plan to go further if they win the election by introducing a NFF. Doing this would help alleviate the worst effects of the cuts for schools that are currently underfunded.’
Freedman himself retweeted this comment.
We had a further conversation on 20 April after this post had been published.
.Tweets by @giftedphoenix
Another influential Twitterata also appeared influenced – if not yet fully converted – by my line of argument:
Positive though some of these indications are, there are grounds to fear that at least some Alliance Members remain wedded to the redistribution of pupil premium.
The report in question – The Power of Reading (April 2015) – mentions that:
‘The Read On. Get On. campaign is working closely with the Fair Education Alliance and the National Literacy Forum to achieve our core goals, and this report reflects and builds on their recommendations.’
One of its ‘recommendations to the new Government’ is ‘Ensure stronger support for disadvantaged children who are falling behind’.
‘In what is likely to be a tight public spending round, our priority for further investment is to improve the quality of early education for the poorest children, as set out above. However, there are options for reforming existing pupil premium spending for primary school children so that it focuses resources and accountability on children from disadvantaged backgrounds who are falling behind…
….One option proposed by the Fair Education Alliance is to refocus the existing pupil premium on children who are eligible for free school meals and who start primary school behind. This would use existing funding and accountability mechanisms for the pupil premium to focus attention on children who need the most urgent help to progress, including in reading. It would make primary schools more accountable for how they support disadvantaged children who are falling behind. The primary pupil premium will be worth £1,300 per pupil in 2015–16 and is paid straight to schools for any child registered as eligible for free school meals at any point in the last six years. The FEA proposes halving the existing premium, and redistributing the other half to children who meet the existing eligibility criteria and have low prior attainment. New baseline tests for children at the start of the reception year, to be introduced in September 2016, could be used as the basis for measuring the prior attainment of children starting primary school.’
Interestingly, this appears to confirm that the Fair Education Alliance supports a redistribution of pupil premium in the primary sector as well as the secondary, something I could not find expressed on the face of the Report Card.
I reacted angrily
The campaign continued
It won’t be long now before I leave the education world behind for ever, but I have decided to devote spare moments to the pursuit on social media of the organisations that form the Fair Education Alliance and/or support Read On. Get On.
I am asking each organisation to:
- Justify their support for the policy that has been advanced or
- Formally distance themselves from it
I also extend an invitation to both campaigns to formally withdraw their proposals.
I shall publish the outcomes here.
The organisations involved are listed below. If any of them would care to cut to the chase, they are most welcome to use the comments facility on this blog or tweet me @GiftedPhoenix
Since my experience to date has been of surprising coyness when organisations are challenged over their ill-conceived policy ideas, I am imposing a ‘three strikes’ rule.
Any organisation that fails to respond having been challenged three times will be awarded a badge of shame and consigned to the Scrapheap.
Let’s see who’s in there by the end of term.
[Postscript 2 (May 10 2015): Teach First published a defence of its policy on 29 April. On 30 April I published a further post fisking this statement to reveal the weaknesses and gaps in their argument.
Of the organisations that are members of the Alliance and/or support Read On. Get On, only Future Leaders and NAHT have responded to my request for clarification.
Future Leaders have distanced themselves from the offending proposal (see their comment on this blog). NAHT has published a response from Russell Hobby to which I have replied. We meet shortly to discuss the matter.
Importantly though, the National Governors’ Association (NGA) has also confirmed its opposition
And so has ASCL. General Secretary Brian Lightman sent me this statement:
‘ASCL is not a member of the Fair Education Alliance at this stage although we do agree with many aspects for what they are doing and are in discussion with them about what we might support and how.
However with regards to this specific point our position is similar to the one that NGA expressed. We would not be in agreement with allocating PP on the basis of prior attainment. FSM is a proxy measure which is used to identify the overall level of disadvantage in a school and therefore pupil premium allocations
We strongly believe that decisions about how to use the PP in schools should be decisions made by school leaders who are fully accountable for the impact of their decisions.’]
Fair Education Alliance
I have published a comment from Future Leaders in which they accept that:
‘…mid- and high-attainers from poor backgrounds should not be deprived of the support that they need to succeed’.
Thanks to them for their prompt and clear response.
Read On. Get On.
- Achievement for All (see above)
- Harper Collins
- I can
- National Association of Head Teachers (see above)
- National Literacy Trust (see above)
- The Publishers Association
- The Reading Agency
- Save the Children (see above)
National Literacy Trust (12/5/15)
Achievement for All (9/6/15)
Teaching Leaders (9/6/15)