Teach Secondary Issue 13.4

teachwire.net/secondary Let’s stop seeing ‘disadvantaged pupils’ as a monolithic group and start recognising their very different backgrounds and needs, say MeenaWood and Julie Grimshaw T he introduction of Pupil Premium funding in 2011 was originally intended to support schools in improving educational outcomes for ‘disadvantaged pupils’ – namely those eligible for free school meals, looked-after children and those with a parent in the armed forces. 13 years on, there seems to be little evidence of it having had overall success, with significant gaps in achievement still remaining – and increasing – between disadvantaged pupils and their peers. Disadvantaged sub-groups The reasons for this are complex, but one contributing factor is our continued use of ever more inaccurate labels for different pupil groups. Ofsted’s definition of ‘disadvantaged pupils’, for example, is wider than you might think, in that it includes pupils with SEND, as well as pupils receiving support fromLAs. If you were to illustrate some of these groups in a Venn diagram, many ‘free school meals’ pupils would straddle multiple sub- groups, such as ethnicity, special needs and gender. We would quickly see how the umbrella term ‘disadvantaged’ has become so broad that it’s now effectively meaningless. Delving deeper into the data, we start to notice huge disparities around these disadvantaged sub-groups when they’re broken down by ethnicity, gender, geographical location and school phase. As noted in the Education Policy Institute’s 2023 Annual Report (see bit.ly/ts134-PP1 ), Chinese pupils were a full two years ahead of white British pupils and white and Black Caribbean pupils by the end of secondary school, whilst Gypsy Roma pupils were over two-and-a-half years behind. The available data also points to major differences in the size of gaps between disadvantaged and non- disadvantaged pupils across different regions. The three LAs with the fastest expanding gaps across school phases are Kingston-upon- Hull, Torbay and Blackpool. London and theWest Midlands, meanwhile, stand out as those regions with the smallest disadvantage gaps across all school phases – with Newham and Slough especially notable for their successes in consistently achieving the smallest disadvantage gaps at the end of primary and secondary school. A‘data-blind’ approach Given these clear anomalies, then, why has Ofsted opted to clump all ‘disadvantaged’ pupils together in a single homogenous category since 2019? It seems like an especially strange move, since it was Ofsted itself that warned against adopting that very approach in 2015. Perhaps they have latched on to the notion that ‘ A rising tide lifts all boats ’ – whichmay be true of the economy, but not of children. Every child or young person is, after all, an individual who won’t have arrived in school with a label neatly displayed on his or her forehead! Within the current inspection framework, there’s very limited use of the highly nuanced information that’s available on pupil groups and regional differences. This ‘data-blind’ approach to inspection has led to claims being made by individual schools and trusts that their disadvantaged pupils require specific approaches if they’re to succeed. Typical instances of these might include, for instance, ‘clear boundaries’, strict uniform rules, certain expectations regarding equipment and the application of prescribed sanctions for those failing to meet these expectations. Unreasonable assumptions Some professionals have been known to make unreasonable assumptions about low- income families – for example, the notion that such parents and carers are unable or unwilling to help, that their children don’t have clear boundaries at home, or that these parents are somehow insufficiently aspirational for their children. We’ve seen one trust leader claim that, “ In schools where behaviour standards are high, disadvantaged “The umbrella term ‘disadvantaged’has become sobroad that it’s now effectivelymeaningless” What makes pupils ‘DISADVANTAGED’? 22