ABSTRACT

Pupil Premium funding has been provided to schools in England since 2011, to reduce socio-economic segregation, and the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers. There is little evidence it works. Some stakeholders are now considering whether funding should cease, or have a new objective. Evaluating the impact of such a funding policy is not easy because the relevant outcomes are sensitive to demographic, economic and other concurrent policy changes. These issues are addressed using the National Pupil Database, comparing the poverty gap in primary schools from 2006 to 2019, focusing on pupils who would have attracted Pupil Premium funding, if it existed, in any year and under any economic conditions. After 2010, the segregation of long-term disadvantaged pupils and their peers reduced in Years 1 and 6, and their attainment improved relative to their peers at a ges 7 and 11. However, assessments changed after 2014 and this complicates the pattern. A regression model suggests that relative attainment for poor pupils improved markedly in the Pupil Premium era, even in regions like the North of England which have faced criticism for apparently “failing“ their poor pupils. We argue for retaining the Pupil Premium policy.

摘要

自 2011 年以来，已向英格兰的学校提供​​ Pupil Premium 资金，以减少社会经济隔离以及弱势学生与同龄人之间的学业差距。几乎没有证据表明它有效。一些利益相关者现在正在考虑是否应该停止资助，或者有一个新的目标。评估这种资助政策的影响并不容易，因为相关结果对人口、经济和其他同时发生的政策变化很敏感。这些问题是使用国家学生数据库解决的，比较了 2006 年至 2019 年小学的贫困差距，重点关注在任何一年和任何经济条件下会吸引瞳孔溢价资金（如果存在）的学生。2010 年后，长期弱势学生与同龄人的隔离在 1 年级和 6 年级减少，并且相对于 7 岁和 11 岁的同龄人，他们的成绩有所提高。但是，2014 年后评估发生了变化，这使模式变得复杂。一个回归模型表明，在“瞳孔溢价”时代，贫困学生的相对成绩显着提高，即使在像英格兰北部这样因明显“不及格”贫困学生而面临批评的地区也是如此。我们主张保留瞳孔溢价政策。