The use of targeted additional funding for school-age education, intended to improve student attainment, is a widespread phenomenon internationally. It is slightly rarer that the funding is used to improve attainment specifically for the most disadvantaged students – often via trying to attract teachers to poorer areas, or encouraging families to send their children to school. It is even rarer that funding is used to try and reduce the attainment gap between economically disadvantaged students and their peers, and almost unheard for the funding to be intended to change the nature of school intakes by making disadvantaged students more attractive to schools. These last two were the objectives set for Pupil Premium funding to schools in England. The funding started in 2011, for all state-funded schools at the same time, so there is no easy counterfactual to help assess how effective it has been. The funding is a considerable investment every year and it is therefore important to know whether it works as intended. This paper presents a time series analysis of all students at secondary school in England from 2006, well before the funding started, until 2019, the most recent year for which there are attainment figures. It overcomes concerns that the official attainment gap between students labelled disadvantaged and the rest is sensitive to demographic, economic, legal and other concurrent policy changes. It does this by looking at a stable group of long-term disadvantaged students. It is argued that this group would have attracted Pupil Premium funding if it had existed in any year and under any economic conditions. After 2010, these long-term disadvantaged pupils became substantially less clustered in specific schools in their first year and throughout their remaining school life. This improvement cannot be explained by economic or other factors used in this paper, and so it looks as though the Pupil Premium has been effective here. The picture for the attainment gap at age 16 is more mixed. It is partly confused by changes in the grading of assessments in 2014 and again from 2016. The reasons why the improvements are less clear than at primary school are discussed, and they involve the nature of evidence available to secondary schools to help them improve the attainment of their most disadvantaged students.

中文翻译：

---

有什么证据表明学生保费资助对英格兰 16 岁时入学和学业的影响？

将有针对性的额外资金用于学龄教育，旨在提高学生的学习成绩，这是国际上普遍存在的现象。很少有资金专门用于提高最弱势学生的学业成绩——通常是通过试图将教师吸引到贫困地区，或鼓励家庭送孩子上学。更罕见的是，资金用于试图缩小经济弱势学生与同龄人之间的学业差距，而且几乎闻所未闻的是，该资金旨在通过提高弱势学生对学校的吸引力来改变入学的性质。最后两个是为英格兰学校提供的 Pupil Premium 资助的目标。资助于 2011 年开始，同时针对所有公立学校，所以没有简单的反事实来帮助评估它的有效性。这笔资金每年都是一笔可观的投资，因此了解它是否按预期运作非常重要。本文介绍了从 2006 年（远在资助开始之前）到 2019 年（有成绩数据的最近一年）的所有英格兰中学学生的时间序列分析。它克服了人们担心被标记为处于不利地位的学生与其他学生之间的官方成绩差距对人口、经济、法律和其他同时发生的政策变化很敏感。它通过观察一组长期处于不利地位的稳定学生来做到这一点。有人争辩说，如果这个群体在任何一年和任何经济条件下都存在，它就会吸引 Pupil Premium 资金。2010年后，这些长期处于不利地位的学生在第一年和剩余的学校生活中明显减少了聚集在特定学校的情况。这种改进不能用本文中使用的经济或其他因素来解释，因此看起来瞳孔溢价在这里很有效。16 岁时的成就差距情况更加复杂。2014 年和 2016 年评估评分的变化部分混淆了它。讨论了为什么改进不如小学那么明显的原因，它们涉及中学可用的证据的性质，以帮助他们提高成绩他们最弱势的学生。这种改进不能用本文中使用的经济或其他因素来解释，因此看起来瞳孔溢价在这里很有效。16 岁时的成就差距情况更加复杂。2014 年和 2016 年评估评分的变化部分混淆了它。讨论了为什么改进不如小学那么明显的原因，它们涉及中学可用的证据的性质，以帮助他们提高成绩他们最弱势的学生。这种改进不能用本文中使用的经济或其他因素来解释，因此看起来瞳孔溢价在这里很有效。16 岁时的成就差距情况更加复杂。2014 年和 2016 年评估评分的变化部分混淆了它。讨论了为什么改进不如小学那么明显的原因，它们涉及中学可用的证据的性质，以帮助他们提高成绩他们最弱势的学生。