Tag Archives: Pupil Premium

DfE confirms secondary ITT shortfall in evidence to STRB

Posted on by
Reply

The DfE’s evidence to the STRB (pay review body for teachers) contains some useful information about the state of the teaching profess, and changes over the past decade and a half since the DfE moved the teacher census from January to November each year. Much has remained the same, across the whole time period. But, before delving into the past, it is worth looking at the table for offers on secondary subjects for 2025 that I created for an earlier post, but now with the data from Table FD4-FD6 of the STRB evidence Evidence to the STRB: 2026 pay award for teachers and leaders – GOV.UK

Interestingly, the DfE doesn’t seem to have included the offers against targets that might have help the STRB to see where shortfalls are likely once the ITT census is published in December.

SubjectTarget2025/26% increase Sept on Juneaccepted Sept 25 FD6 DfE to STRBover/under target
Total Secondary19,27026%16843-2,427
Primary7,65034%98802,230
Chemistry73049%909179
Biology98536%1397412
Mathematics2,30035%2617317
Design & Technology96533%678-287
Art & Design68033%902222
Geography93533%98146
Classics6032%42-18
English1,95031%1760-190
Drama62030%273-347
Business Studies90029%235-665
Music56528%343-222
Religious Education78028%418-362
Others2,52025%360-2,160
History79023%936146
Modern Languages1,46021%1428-32
Physics1,41019%1313-97
Physical Education72517%1491766
Computing8955%761-134

As I suggested in my previous post, despite the renewed attraction of teaching for new graduates, there are still some subjects that won’t meet their target. Interestingly, the target for recruiting primary teachers is likely to be massively exceeded this year. Whether all those trainees will find jobs next summer is an interesting question.

With the continued shortfall against targets, where do schools find their staff from, and are they appropriately qualified? The answer to the second part of the question seems to be it depends on whether the school is in Pupil Premium decile 1 or decile 10. (Table D7) The data in this table suggests that schools in decline 1 have higher teacher wastage rates; higher percentages of unqualified teachers; higher percentages of teachers with less experience of teaching and a higher percentage of lesson taught by teachers not seen as qualified in the subject they are teaching. None of this is very surprising, but if the government wants to do something to level up outcomes, then they should pay attention to these percentages.

As to where schools find their teachers to ensure they are fully staffed if there are shortfalls in the numbers emerging from training, there has been a shift in the number of teachers coming from the old dominions, and an increase in those from other members of the Commonwealth. I will discuss these changes in more detail in another blog, as well as trends in recruitment for Europe.

Finally, it is worth noting that the secondary school teacher population expressed as Full Time equivalents (FTEs) barely changed between November 2010 and November 2020, increasing by just 265 FTEs, from 218,736 to 219,001. By contrast, the primary teacher FTEs in the same period increased from 196,258 to 215,632 by November 2024, although this was below the 225,537 FTEs recorded in November 2020, before pupil numbers began to fall.

Class matters more than ethnicity

Posted on by
Reply

The end of the summer term is a curious time to announce an inquiry into White working-class kids in schools. The inquiry seems to be funded by private finance, but with government backing. Members revealed for white working-class kids inquiry

Two former Secretaries of State will be on the board, along with a DfE official, as well as many others representing the great and the good in schooling, but not perhaps either the churches or representatives of the under-fives lobby.

As SchoolsWeek pointed out in their news item, this is not the first such inquiry into the achievements or lack of them, of this group in society.  Indeed, the House of Commons Select Committee has had two goes at the issue, in 2014 and 2020. HC No

As well as the Select Committee’s reports, and the evidence submitted to the Committee, The inquiry might also like to read the DfE’s Report on outcomes by ethnicity Outcomes by ethnicity in schools in England – GOV.UK published before the pandemic.

I am sure the inquiry will focus on what works, and no doubt discuss issues about what is being measured and over-reliance on Free School Meals data. They will also need to discuss the issues around definitions, as society has become much both more complex, and more polarised. The measurement of children – I prefer the term to kids – of mixed heritage has added many more sub-categories to the original list.

However, I cannot help thinking that the focus of the inquiry is wrong. All the evidence suggests that of the three factors of race, gender and class, it is the third one that really matters. Yes, they are often inter-related, but looking at socio-economic data it is often schools in deprived areas, regardless of the ethnicity of their pupils that fare less well in school performance table.

Is this due to the funding arrangements. Some areas, notably London, are better funded than other parts of England. Is it down to teacher deployment and the market system. Do the best teacher seek to work in the most challenging schools or those with the best outcomes. How much does support from home matter. Can poor teaching be overcome with support and tutoring from home. All these were issues considered by the Select Committee. Then there are issues such as school attendance and what happens at the Foundation State if pupils miss vital building blocks in language and mathematics. Does the class teacher system help or hinder these children?

In terms of funding, what effect has the Pupil Premium had on outcomes, and is there any evidence that where academies can pool the funds of all schools and move resources between schools whereas local authorities cannot do so that this arrangement can boost outcomes in traditionally under-performing schools?

I guess one measure is the percentage of pupils on Free School Meals across the country that pass the tests for selective schools. Will the inquiry suggest a fully comprehensive secondary school system? If not, how will it address this injustice.

I am disappointed that it has taken this Labour government a year to start the process of addressing this issue. What were they doing in opposition? After all, the Liberal Democrats pushed the Pupil Premium right for the start of the coalition in 2010, as it had been in their manifesto.  How much does this government really care about those children that don’t achieve their full potential for whatever reason.

Missions still need funding

Posted on by
Reply

In February, Sir Keir Starmer outlined his five missions for the Labour Party – one wonders, will they appear on a pledge card, as once before – and the fifth one was ‘raising education standards’ according to a BBC report at the time Keir Starmer unveils Labour’s five missions for the country – BBC News

After a recent announcement about teachers, dealt with in my blog at Labour’s style over substance | John Howson (wordpress.com) came a Leader’s speech today on the subject of what the Labour Party would do about policy for education.

In reality, education seemed to mean schooling, skills and early years, if the press reports are to be believed. Interestingly, the BBC has now substituted the word ‘pledge’ for the term ‘mission’. An example of ‘word creep’, perhaps? Actually, it seems more like sloppy journalism if the text of the speech is to be believed, as it starts by referring to ‘mission’ not pledge. Read: Full Keir Starmer mission speech on opportunity, education and childcare – LabourList

At the heart of the speech seems to be these two questions

‘So these are the two fundamental questions we must now ask of our education system: are we keeping pace with the future, preparing all our children to face it?

And – are we prepared to confront the toxic divides that maintain the class ceiling?’

The speech was about class and opportunity as a means of raising standards. Sir Keir has clearly moved on form the famous ‘rule of three’ and now favour a five-point approach, so we had

Apart from the already announced increase in teacher numbers and the retention bonus, there was little about either how the new education age would be delivered or how it would be paid for. No pledge to level up post 16 funding, so badly hit under the present government.

Plans for Early Years

Oracy to build confidence

A review of the National Curriculum for the new digital age

The importance of vocational and work-related studies

Tackling low expectations

There was little for any progressive politician to take issue with in the speech, but little to demonstrate the drive to accomplish the fine words. Re-opening Children’s Centres will come at a price, as will changing the curriculum.

There was nothing to show how resources will be channelled into areas of deprivation and under-performance. Will Labour continue the Conservative idea of Opportunity Areas that do nothing for pockets of underperformance in affluent areas or will it revive the Pupil Premium introduced by the Lib Dems, when part of the coalition, ascheme that identified individual need, wherever it was to be found.

I think I still prefer the 2015 approach from the Liberal Democrats to end illiteracy within 10 years: something that can be measured, rather than the more nebulous ‘raising of standards’ offered by Sir Kier.

Finally, from the Labour Party that introduced tuition fees, not a word on higher education and the consequence of raising standards on the demand for places. Perhaps Labour has still to reconcile the brave new world of skills and the place of universities in the new education landscape. With higher standards will come another class ceiling at eighteen?

Some still do better than others

Posted on by
Reply

The DfE has published an interesting report on outcomes by ethnicity and Free School Meals. It might have been even more useful with a section on gender added and also some regional breakdown to see if the additional funding in the London area makes any difference to outcomes. Outcomes by ethnicity in schools in England – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

For many, the inclusion of Traveller children and their performance will come as a shock as these groups don’t regularly appear in most tables. Funding for the education of traveller children hasn’t been high on anyone’s agenda for many years. Perhaps now it the time to reassess how we offer education to the children in the travelling community.

The Report makes clear the poor outcomes for certain sections of some communities, especially those pupils on Free school Meals.  

According to the DfE report there were over 8 million pupils recorded in the school census in 2021. Ethnicity responses in the report are grouped into 17 options or “Any other” as a catch-all category. I guess some South American children might fall into this group.

The DfE points out that it is important to consider variation within groups, especially when aggregated into larger groups such as “White” or “Asian”.  When aggregated 72% of pupils (5.9 million) described their ethnicity as White, 11% (900,000) Asian excluding Chinese, and around 6% each as Mixed (520,000) or Black (460,000). 2% of pupils described themselves as belonging to ethnic groups not captured in the census (170,000), and 0.5% of pupils identify as Chinese (37,000).

An important finding is that the proportion of White British pupils meeting the expected standard falls at each stage in their education.

Other groups also see fluctuations across stages, but the effect is most pronounced in the White British Group. As seen in figure 2, White British pupils fall from 5th of 18 groups in younger groups to 10th later in school. This is reflected in the average Progress 8 score of a White British GCSE entrant being negative (-0.14) where 0 represents average progress through secondary school. The DfE comment that since Progress 8 is a relative metric, we cannot say whether this trajectory represents “catch-up” of some non-White British groups or a “falling behind” effect.

However, some other groups also fare badly according to the report

‘Black Caribbean, Mixed White and Black Caribbean and Other Black pupils are all less likely to meet the expected standard at all stages than White British pupils, and the size of this gap doubles between 4- to 5-year-olds and GCSE pupils.

Comparing between a class of 30 White British pupils and a class of 30 pupils from these 3 groups, on average 1 or 2 more pupils in the Black and Mixed class would be below the expected standard at 4 to 5 years-old, whereas 3 to 5 fewer pupils would receive a strong pass in English and Maths GCSE. 11. The average progress 8 scores of Black Caribbean (-0.30) and Mixed White/Black Caribbean (-0.37) pupils are more negative than the White British group. Pupils selecting Black Other (+0.08) have slightly positive average progress 8 score.

Gypsy/Roma, and Irish Traveller pupils have the consistently lowest levels of attainment of any ethnic group, and the most negative progress 8 scores.’

The report notes that five groups made below average progress throughout secondary school. These groups are – White British, Black Caribbean, Mixed White/Black Caribbean, and Gypsy/Roma, Irish Traveller pupils. These groups start with lower attainment scores following primary school, so low progress scores represent a confounding effect where these groups are falling further behind their peers. Controlling for FSM, only White and Black Caribbean groups have below average progress among non-FSM recipients. White FSM recipients have the lowest progress among all aggregated groups, and Mixed and Black groups have below average progress.

This report is powerful evidence for the levelling up agenda discussion and also for the discussion on the hard National Funding Formula currently being discussed as part of the Schools Bill before parliament. Once again, it raises the question over the degree of hypothecation required in funding schools and how the money is both used and evaluated. Interestingly, there is nothing in this report about the use of Pupil Premium monies as a hypothecated grant.

Funding schools: how far to hypothecate?

Posted on by
Reply

No sooner do we have a National Funding Formula for schools than it starts to dawn on some people that’ equal’ shares may not be the best way to achieve the policy goal of levelling up outcomes. How funds are distributed to schools are key to education outcomes, and have been ever since the State mandated schooling as the default position for the education of children whose parents did not, could not, or would not make other arrangements.

At the heart of the debate about the distribution of funds are two key principles: equity and the identification of the point of decision on how to spend funds. For much of the past 100 years the issues around the degree of hypothecation of funds was centre stage. With the devolution of budgets to schools in the 1990s, this issue was replaced for a long period by the debate over how much cash should be allocated to schooling.

Of course, the problem of creating an education system where all may enjoy success meant that the issue of how funds were allocated didn’t entirely disappear from the political agenda. However, the simple view of a hard National Funding Formula approach that put the view that ‘equal means the same for all’ centre stage – except of course that pay differentials and London weighting meant that it was never as simple as some would have liked – gained supremacy in thinking, although there were always other exceptions such as Education Opportunity Areas.

Funding policy is now under scrutiny once again, with the national levelling up agenda taking centre stage in the political agenda around policymaking. This policy hasn’t been fully worked through in terms of what it means for education and the hypothecation agenda. I wrote in an earlier blog post about how you enforce retention payments to teachers if that is a mechanism to be used in the prosecution of levelling up. Mandate schools and provide a hypothecated grant?

This week there have been two helpful additions to help the discussions on the funding debate. The House of Commons library has published a research briefing, excellent, as always, on School Funding https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8419/CBP-8419.pdf

Teach First, the charity whose aims now extend well beyond just training teachers to work in schools with high levels of disadvantage pupils, has published a  report around rethinking the Pupil Premium Rethinking pupil premium: a costed proposal for levelling up | Teach First The Pupil Premium is, of course,  a great example of a semi-hypothecated grant to schools, in that its criteria for distribution are made clear, but its actual use by schools is not determined closely as part of the funding.

At present, different rules also apply as between maintained schools and academies and Academy Trusts in how funds distributed through the National Funding formula may be aggregated to cover central costs. This is an interesting area of the hypothecation debate that merits further discussion.

But in the end, decisions about the allocation of funds will always be in the hands of those that provide the funding. Local council taxpayers can be grateful that funding schools is no longer a part of their costs in urban areas. In the countryside, and where there are large bills for special needs transport, it is a different matter, as school transport costs are left to local council taxpayers to cover.

Military families missing out

Posted on by
Reply

Neither Oxfordshire nor Wiltshire were included in the published list of Education Investment Areas designated as part of the government’s levelling up programme. Package to transform education and opportunities for most disadvantaged – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) This may be important because these are two of the local authorities with large concentrations of military families attending schools within their areas.

The RAF will generally benefit because the whole of East Anglia and Lincolnshire are included in the list of authorities and that is where many RAF bases are located. The inclusion of Plymouth and Portsmouth will cover many naval families. However, the families of troops based on Salisbury plain at Tidworth and many other barracks in Wiltshire will still need to rely just upon the Service Children’s Premium and the Pupil Premium for extra support. The same is true for garrisons in Oxfordshire at Bicester, Abingdon and Didcot, and the RAF bases at Benson and Brize Norton.   

Troops moving from Catterick in North Yorkshire or RAF bases in Lincolnshire to Wessex will find the support for their children’s education may reduce under these plans.

Now, our armed forces may be a small part of pupil population, but they do serve to highlight the fact that there are children that don’t stay in one place for their school life. Levelling up probably needs to be more than just about geography and picking areas off a map.

A geographical strategy is anyway easier to achieve when there is a coherent basis for local government areas. Sadly, that is not the case at the present time. Cambridgeshire includes the successful parts of Cambridge, although I acknowledge that like Oxford the whole of the city is neither affluent not without need for extra funding. Was Cambridgeshire included because it is part of a combined authority with a mayor, whereas Oxfordshire is one of the few remaining two-tier local government setups, with no unitary authority.  

I wonder how Medway and parts of Cumbria feel looking at the list of Education Investment Areas? Do they feel that they have missed out?

As I wrote, in the previous post on this blog, the education measures will need to be backed up by hard cash to have any real effect. In terms of teaching staff turnover, TeachVac has provided a number of the Opportunity Areas with data about their local teacher labour markets and can do so for the new Education Investment Areas.

One thing is certain is that teaching cooking and healthy eating to secondary school pupils is going to need a rethink about staffing as within design and technology – a subject that attracts few to teaching these days – food technology is the most challenging discipline in terms of finding teachers anywhere in England.

Levelling up is as important today as ever for our schooling system. How far these moves will help is a matter for debate.

What’s the purpose behind school funding?

Posted on by
Reply

The National Audit Office (NAO) has issued a report into school funding. https://www.nao.org.uk/report/school-funding-in-england/?slide=1

The present, and relatively new, National Funding Formula has exercised this blog on a number of different occasions. As recently as early May, I wrote that

The current National Funding Formula is fine as far as it goes. However, as I have written before on this blog, it is based upon a notion of equality that resembles the ‘equal slices of the cake’ model of funding distribution. That’s fine if that’s what you want out of the Formula, and the f40 Group of Local authorities have tirelessly campaigned for fair – more- funding for their areas. Again, they are right to do so.

However, if the new agenda has leveling up at its heart, then it is necessary to ask whether the present method of distributing cash to schools and other education establishments will achieve that aim? Leveling Up will need a new Funding Formula (posted 9th May 2021)

The NAO’s view as summarised in their conclusions is that:

‘With the introduction of the national funding formula, the Department has met its objective of making its allocations more predictable and transparent. However, it is difficult to conclude definitively on whether the Department has met its objective of allocating funding fairly with resources matched to need. There has been a shift in the balance of funding from more deprived to less deprived local areas. This shift has resulted mainly from changes in relative need and the introduction of minimum per-pupil funding levels. Although more deprived local authorities and schools continue on average to receive more per pupil than those that are less deprived, the difference in funding has narrowed. The Department must evaluate the impact of the national funding formula and minimum funding levels over time and use that information to inform whether further action is needed to meet its objectives.’

They also say of school funding in general that:

‘After real-terms reductions in school funding in the two years to 2018-19, the Department has since increased funding and plans further rises. Because of growing pupil numbers, average per-pupil funding was virtually unchanged in real terms between 2014-15 and 2020-21. The increases in cash funding did not cover estimated cost pressures between 2015-16 and 2019-20 but were projected to exceed them in 2020-21, although the Department has not factored in the potential impact of COVID-19 in this assessment.’

The message on deprivation is not good news, especially for the urban areas where large areas of deprivation are more closely linked to local government boundaries. The NAO make it clear that the DfE has allocated the largest funding increases to previously less well funded areas, which tend to be less deprived. (para 14)

Realistically, in my view, there needs to be a funding formula that is aligned with policy objectives. For instance, there should now be enough data about Opportunity Areas to see whether they have been any more successful that previous attempts at area based schemes to improve outcomes or whether national schemes such as the Pupil Premium offer better value for money?

This is an important report for anyone that needs to understand the niceties of school funding and there, as expected, some useful diagrams and charts to help explain how school funding works.

Schools and their teachers

Posted on by
2

Today, the DfE published it annual update of statistics about key features of the school system in England. https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/school-workforce-in-england for the school workforce based upon 2020 census taken last November and https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/schools-pupils-and-their-characteristics-january-2021 for school, pupils and their characteristics based upon January returns.

There are a mass of data in the two publications that will take time to work through. One highlight is that the percentage of teachers retained after one year of service continued its downward decline, but retention rates for those with longer service reversed the downward trend of recent years to register improvements. This may, of course, be due to the lack of opportunities for new jobs, both within and outwith schools that was the result of the covid pandemic. The 2021 census will confirm whether this is a reversal of a trend or just a blip.

It would be necessary to see the actual numbers and not percentages and the balance between the primary sector and secondary schools before commenting in detail on the one-year retention rate decline. The start of the reduction in primary rolls might have meant some temporary posts weren’t replaced, but the data in its present form cannot answer that question.

England is increasingly being divided into two nations in terms of the ethnicity of its teaching force. The North East still has 99% of its primary, and 98% of its secondary teachers classified as White, whereas Inner London has 27% of its primary and 35% of its secondary school teachers classified as from minority groupings. These percentages in Inner London have been increasing steadily over the past five years. There are policy implications behind the percentages, especially when the percentages are disaggregated to local authority levels. What are the consequences for Society as a whole if this uneven distribution continues?

One outcome arising from the pandemic has been the increase in pupils claiming Free School Meals – up from 17.3% in 2020 to20.8% in 2021. This represents some 1.74 million pupils. Over 420,000 pupils have become eligible for free school meals since the first lockdown on 23 March 2020. This compares to 292,000 for the same period (March 2019 to Jan 2020) before the pandemic. However, due to the change in Pupil Premium rules schools will not fully benefit from the funding through the Pupil Premium and Catch-up funds that are linked to Free School Meal numbers. As the Jon Andrews of the Education Policy Institute notes:

“Today’s figures are a further indication that the government’s change to how the pupil premium is allocated means that pupils and schools are now missing out on vital funding. These losses are found not only in the pupil premium itself but in other areas such as catch-up funding for disadvantaged pupils, which is closely linked to it.

“The Department for Education should now publish its analysis of the impact of this decision on pupil premium allocations and clarify whether any savings from this have been redistributed.”

The number of unqualified teachers has remained broadly stable across primary, secondary and special schools for both male and female teachers with a slight downward trend in the primary sector for the number of unqualified female teachers.

There is much more to explore in the detail of the time series, and I hope to write a few more blogs over the coming days.

Leveling Up will need a new Funding Formula

Posted on by
Reply

The current National Funding Formula is fine as far as it goes. However, as I have written before on this blog, it is based upon a notion of equality that resembles the ‘equal slices of the cake’ model of funding distribution. That’s fine if that’s what you want out of the Formula, and the f40 Group of Local authorities have tirelessly campaigned for fair – more- funding for their areas. Again, they are right to do so.

However, if the new agenda has levelling up at its heart, then it is necessary to ask whether the present method of distributing cash to schools and other education establishments will achieve that aim?

As the debate about the High Needs Block of funding for SEND has made very clear, some children cost more to educate than others. If you want all children to achieve a minimum standard of education then some will always cost more to achieve that goal than others. The Pupil Premium recognised this fact. Changing the date of calculation and thus excluding some children from the Premium seems an odd way to start the ‘levelling up’ campaign.

There is a key decision for government to make if they really mean to introduce a ‘levelling up’ campaign in the school sector. Do you hypothecate, as with the Pupil Premium, creating funds only to be used for levelling up purposes or do you distribute more funds generally and leave it to the schools and Trusts to manage the distribution of the cash? This approach leaves maintained schools that are not academies in a bit of a limbo as they don’t have a mechanism to ‘pool’ funds for the common good, as MATs are able to do.

When it works well, the second approach is better, as it is less of a blunt tool than the first method as anyone that has read the history of school funding over the last century will know.

There is a further issue with a Formula tied to geographical areas, as this blog has noted before. Oxfordshire is largely an affluent county, but there are pockets of deprivation in Banbury and parts of Oxford; not to mention the issue of rural poverty as well. Any ‘levelling up’ agenda must tackle these issues in addition to the more obvious areas of underperformance in education achievements.

Overlaying this issue of ‘levelling up’ is the effect on the present Formula of the downturn in the birth rate and its consequences for small primary schools. Do we want them to compete by drawing in parents willing to drive their children to such schools? An alternative is to close them and let council Taxpayers pay the cost of transporting children to other schools. Might work in urban areas, but the Tories would quickly find that save our Schools campaigns can impact more on election chances for Councillors than almost anything else except perhaps closure of a local hospital. There are also implications for the climate change agenda. I would be interested to know where the Green Party stands on this matter.

Doing nothing won’t help the ‘levelling up’ agenda, so if the government is really serious in what it is saying, then action will be needed. Making all schools academies, however repugnant the loss of local democratic control is to people like me, does offer some levers hat MATs can use, but local authorities cannot under the present rules.

It will be interesting to see what plays out over the next few months in a debate where doing nothing will have as many consequences as doing something.

Equal not fair: the new direction for education?

Posted on by
Reply

So Boris wants a ‘superb’ education for all children. His recipe for achieving this is to offer all primary and secondary schools the same cash amount per pupil of some £5,000. No mention of special education, further education or indeed higher education in that part of his speech.

As this blog has recorded in the past, post-16 and further education is seriously in need of a cash injection, probably even more than the schools sector. Although secondary schools will benefit from more cash for their Key Stage 3 & 4 pupils under Boris’s idea, this won’t help fully fund sixth forms and will leave further education colleges still drifting towards financial meltdown in some cases.

What is the future for the High Needs Block of funding and a ‘superb’ education for all our pupils with special educational needs? I guess much will depend upon how Mr Williamson, as the incoming Secretary of State for Education, interprets the words of his boss? Personally, I hope he reminds Boris that Eton doesn’t charge the same fees as many other private schools and asks whether he believes that what is right for public education should be applied to private schooling as well?

More seriously, the idea of the same cash for all is based upon a very simplistic notion of education, where equal means ‘the same’. In 2002, I wrote a paper for the Liberal Democrats espousing the ‘compensatory principle’. This is based upon funding the needs of a child to reach the outcome levels desired by the system: some children need more resources to achieve the desired outcome than others.

Such a principle recognises the need for additional funding for both specific children and particular areas within local government boundaries. The Coalition introduced the Pupil Premium to recognise this need, and the Mrs May’s government created additionally funded ‘Opportunity Areas’. What happens to these modification of £5,000 for all will be a real test of the values of this government.

Extensive research shows all children do not arrive at school with the same degree of development, whatever their innate capabilities. The system should recognise that fact and take it into account in funding. Furthermore, if the State mandates the same funding for all schools, should it allow schools in more affluent areas to top-up the State grant and once again create a funding differential?

The teacher associations have calculated that the headline £5,000 for all is relatively cheap to implement, costing only about £50 million a year according to the BBC. However, to restore funding levels to where the teacher associations would like them to be might cost close to £13 Billion rather than a few million pounds. Such a sum, even without the demands of the further education sector, is a different order of magnitude.

Sadly, for a Prime minister that likes headlines, the £5,000 is a good headline figure and seems like a lot of money: these days it isn’t. How schools are treated will reveal the true values off the new government.