Students from lower-income families have lost their progress, and the pandemic is not only to be blamed for this.
The latest report from the Education Policy Institute (EPI) focuses on 2019-2023, so its findings are a snapshot of the pandemic and its aftermath. While the declining achievement of children from poorer backgrounds is not surprising, it is dismaying to see forecasts regarding the damaging and uneven impact of COVID-19 disruption come true.
The widening gap between the educational achievement of the richest and poorest students in school is a setback for everyone who wants the latter to reach their full potential and for our society to become less divided and more equitable.
This gap has long been a goal, and pupil premium, which provides additional financing to schools with lower enrollments, was supposed to help achieve it. However, the difference between 11 and 16-year-olds is more comprehensive than it has been since 2011, wiping away a decade of progress. For children with special educational needs, the decline is even starker.
The report also adds to a concerning body of evidence regarding the youngest children, with five-year-olds falling further behind. A recent teacher survey discovered that an increasing percentage of reception-year students are not toilet-trained and struggle to play with others.
Sir Collins’ appointment as a school adviser last week sent a positive signal. His resignation in 2011, when then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson rejected this pandemic catch-up plan, was a low point. Labour’s commitment to hire 6,500 teachers and launch breakfast clubs, which will fund taxes on private school tuition, is a more positive move forward. Staff shortage and food scarcity make life in schools extremely difficult.
Inspection of multi-academy trusts, also expected to be included in the king’s speech, would have been implemented years ago if not for market ideologues obsessed with their freedoms. The same applies to policies that allow academies to bypass the national curriculum and hire incompetent teachers.
Similarly, the promised registration of children not attending school should already exist. While some free spirits oppose the state intervention in home-schooling arrangements, the hazards to children from losing out on education are too significant. Councils should keep an eye on things rather than ignoring them and hoping for the best.
Similar to how increasing the number of students enrolled in schools is not a magic bullet, such regulation modifications are significant but do not ensure improvement. Over time, issues with the staff and curriculum have accumulated. The special needs provisions enacted by the Conservatives have proved disastrous. London is an exception, where poorer students perform better, which attests to the city’s dynamism. It doesn’t compensate for weakness elsewhere.
A cross-government plan on child poverty that has been pledged ought to make an impact. Benefits should no longer be limited to two children. It’s essential to consider the EPI’s recommendation of a new funding premium for those between the ages of 16 and 19. Millions of young people’s opportunities in life are limited by the persistent lack of attention paid to alternatives to the A-level university pipeline.
Labour has dropped the leveling-up campaign, calling it a publicity stunt. However, the incoming government chooses to phrase it: Increasing the likelihood that less fortunate children will grow up should be a primary goal. Both social and financial resources should be invested in education. Education can help create a society that is less divided and more unified.
