【英国教育政策研究所（EPI）】2024缩小被遗忘的差距：实施16-19岁学生津贴报告_42页_1mb

Summary of "Closing the Forgotten Gap: Implementing a 16-19 Student Premium"

Core Content

This document, produced by the Education Policy Institute (EPI), outlines the case for introducing a 16-19 student premium as a targeted funding mechanism to support economically disadvantaged students in further education. It builds on the existing pupil premium policy, which has been effective in improving outcomes for disadvantaged students in primary and secondary education.

The EPI argues that the current funding system for 16-19 education creates a cliff-edge in support at age 16, where funding for disadvantaged students drops significantly compared to the earlier phases. This is a critical period, as the qualifications obtained during this time have a major impact on future career prospects and lifelong outcomes.

Main Viewpoints

• Disadvantaged students face a significant attainment gap: By age 16, they are on average three grades behind their peers, with those in long-term poverty being nearly four grades behind.
• The gap persists into adulthood: Disadvantaged students earn around 10% less by age 28 than their non-disadvantaged peers, even when educational attainment is controlled.
• Existing funding is insufficient: The further education sector has experienced the largest spending cuts since 2010, exacerbating the challenges faced by disadvantaged students.
• A student premium is needed: To address the attainment gap and ensure continued support for disadvantaged students during the 16-19 phase.

Key Information

Eligibility Criteria

• FSM6 (Free School Meal eligibility in the last six years): This is the current standard for identifying disadvantaged students in secondary schools. It is used as a baseline for the student premium.
• Area-based deprivation (IMD): To address the limitations of FSM6, the EPI proposes using the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), which measures the level of deprivation in the area where a student currently resides.
• Combined definition (EPI definition): This combines both student-level (FSM6) and area-level (IMD) measures of disadvantage. It is estimated that this would cover 28% of 16-19 students (around 329,000 students in 2021/22).
• Alternative definitions:
  • FSM6 only: Would cover 22% of students (around 260,000 students).
  • Department for Education's definition: Would cover 45% of students (around 536,000 students), but would dilute the focus on economic disadvantage and increase costs.

Funding Scenarios

Three funding scenarios are explored:

1. Scenario 1: Matches the secondary school pupil premium rate of £1,035 per student. Total cost would be £340 million annually.
2. Scenario 2: Matches the per-student rate at which disadvantage is funded in secondary schools. Total cost would range from £213 million to £491 million.
3. Scenario 3: Matches the overall proportion of funding allocated to disadvantage in secondary schools. Total cost would range from £213 million to £491 million.

The EPI recommends Scenario 1 as a starting point to address the funding cliff-edge, with the rate being reviewed over time.

Implementation Considerations

• Data sharing: Institutions need access to accurate and consistent data to identify eligible students. Currently, less than one-third of further education colleges use the existing system.
• Accountability: Unlike the pupil premium, 16-19 institutions are not required to report how they use disadvantage funding, which limits transparency and effectiveness.
• Evidence base: The 16-19 evidence base on effective interventions is still developing. A student premium could stimulate further research and the development of best practices.
• Staggered roll-out: Recommended to build the evidence base and ensure effective implementation.

Recommendations

1. Introduce a student premium based on a combination of FSM6 and IMD measures to better target economic disadvantage.
2. Initially peg the rate to the secondary school pupil premium (currently £1,035) to ensure continuity and address the funding cliff-edge.
3. Keep the rate under review to ensure it remains effective and responsive to changing needs.
4. Develop the 16-19 evidence base on what works and at what cost, supported by the Education Endowment Foundation.
5. Ensure accountability by requiring institutions to publish how they use the student premium funding.
6. Consider a staggered roll-out to evaluate effectiveness and build a robust evidence base.

Conclusion

A 16-19 student premium is essential to close the attainment gap and ensure disadvantaged students have the support needed to succeed in education and beyond. It should be a fixed, per-student amount, additional to existing funding, and based on a combination of individual and area-level measures of disadvantage. The EPI highlights the need for data sharing, accountability, and a clear central aim to make the student premium effective and equitable.

Appendix: Data and Methodology

• Student counts and costings are based on the National Pupil Database (NPD) and other official data sources.
• The EPI uses scenario analysis to estimate the potential cost and scope of a student premium policy.
• The analysis is conducted within the Secure Research Service, part of the Office for National Statistics.

References

• Data from the National Pupil Database (NPD), Office for National Statistics (ONS), and the Department for Education.
• Previous research and reports by the EPI, including the 2024 Annual Report and studies on pupil absence and school choice.