Pupil Premium could bring penalty

Ministers were warned today that cash designed to help the poorest pupils could end up failing the youngsters it is meant to help.

The Government is planning to introduce a new "pupil premium" to boost the achievement of disadvantaged children.

But an analysis of the proposals has concluded that one of the methods being considered to calculate the premium could end up penalising the poorest youngsters in the poorest communities.

London Councils, which conducted the analysis, has written to ministers outlining its concerns.

It says that under the plans Tower Hamlets, London's poorest borough which has high levels of deprivation (more than half of children are on free school meals - FSM - a measure of poverty), would receive a premium of £653 for every poor pupil, while Wokingham, which is considered to have lower levels of deprivation (5% of pupils on FSM) would receive £2,943 per poor pupil.

Under the current system, money is already set aside for "deprivation funding", with Wokingham receiving £4,060 per deprived child compared to Tower Hamlets' £2,197, London Councils said.

The pupil premium would be on top of this money.

But when this "deprivation funding" is added to the money each area receives for every pupil - not just the poorest - it appears that Tower Hamlets gets more money per child than Wokingham.

This is because services cost more in London and Tower Hamlets would receive more for providing services such as English as an additional language, London Councils said.

The organisation is concerned that if the pupil premium is calculated from the wrong starting point, with the current funding in mind, it could end up widening the gap in funding between the most deprived authorities and their wealthier counterparts.

Tower Hamlets has the worst borough in London for rates of deprivation, with 53 per cent of children coming from families living on unemployment benefits.

The  Office for National Statistics (ONS) 2006 estimates that fifty six per cent of the population in Tower Hamlets belonged to an ethnic group other than white British thirty per cent are Bangladeshi, of whom over a third are 15 years or less and eight per cent are from other white backgrounds.

For London as a whole the percentage of Bangladeshi households with two or more dependent children was 57 per cent, more than three times the London average of 17 per cent.

London Councils' executive member for children and young people, councillor Steve Reed, said: "We assume that it is not the Government's intention to penalise pupils from more deprived areas, but unfortunately that is what their plans look set to do.

"This is not just about London - the most deprived areas around the country will see far less pupil premium funding per child than significantly wealthier areas of the country. This is the complete opposite of what the Government says it is trying to do."

Londoncouncils said it has come up with a fairer funding model and will be raising it with ministers.

A spokesman for the Department for Education said: "The pupil premium will ensure that additional money goes to our country's poorest children in the schools that they go to, to help improve their attainment, and narrow the gap between them and their peers.

"Ministers are still considering options on the indicator to be used for the premium and the method of allocation, and will set out details shortly."

Picture: Pupils at St Matthias School, Bethnal Green