The Children s Society s submission to the Consultation on School Funding Reform: Proposals for a Fairer System 11 October 2011 Introduction The Children s Society supports nearly 50,000 children and young people every year through our specialist services and children s centres. We believe in achieving a better childhood for every child but have a particular focus on vulnerable children who have nowhere else to turn. We seek to give a voice to children and young people and influence policy and practice so they have a better chance in life. As a leading children s charity committed to making childhood better for all children in the UK we welcome the opportunity to contribute to this consultation. We have chosen to focus specifically on the questions in this consultation related to the Pupil Premium including question 45 examining the best option for extending the eligibility criteria of the Pupil Premium. The Children s Society is a member of the Special Educational Consortium and we support their response to this consultation on the wider school funding proposals. Please contact Laura Rodrigues, Policy Officer, laura.rodrigues@childrenssociety.org.uk 0207 841 4400 ext. 5307 if you require further information on any of the issues raised. Summary We welcome the proposal to extend the Pupil Premium (PP) eligibility criteria so that it covers a larger group of children. However, we are concerned that solely basing PP eligibility on those entitled to FSM (even the Ever 3 or Ever 6 measures) will not capture all deprived groups. We have set out a number of recommendations to broaden the scope of the PP eligibility criteria: We believe that there should be a review of the current shortfall in take-up of FSM entitlement and that steps must be taken to ensure all those eligible are claiming FSMs and therefore covered by the PP. We recommend extending the eligibility criteria for FSM to include refused asylum seeking children supported under Section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and children supported under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989. Page 1 of 9
It is essential more support is provided to ensure migrant families are aware and take up their entitlement to FSM benefit for their children and so become eligible for the PP. We believe Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Children should be treated as a separate group who automatically qualify for the PP. We recommend schools are encouraged to use some of the funding from the PP to target support to young carers. We suggest that Department for Education consider the implications of the changes to FSM eligibility criteria under the new Universal Credit on the allocation of the PP. We recommend that eligibility for the PP is extended to include those who live in particularly deprived areas based on the index of multiple deprivation. The Pupil Premium The Children s Society supports the PP and the aim to provide more funding to improve the educational outcomes of disadvantaged children. The current wide achievement gap between disadvantaged children and those from more privileged households is unacceptable. We welcome the recent announcement that the total funding available for the PP is set to double to 1.25bn in 2012-13 1. Eligibility for the Pupil Premium We understand why eligibility for Free School Meals (FSM) criteria was chosen to determine eligibility for the PP as it is a clear and simple method 2. We welcome that the consultation document acknowledges that FSMs are considered to underreport the actual level of deprivation and seeks to extend the coverage of the PP by introducing an Ever 3 or Ever 6 indicator. However, we have concerns with the use of FSM as the criteria for PP that we believe cannot be addressed by including Ever 3 or 6 criteria. We are proposing that an alternative measure is used alongside FSM and that certain groups should be automatically eligible for the PP as looked after children are currently. Our main concerns with solely using entitlement to FSM to define eligibility for the PP are: 1. FSM eligibility does not capture all deprived groups. Some of those groups missed out include children from working families who live under the poverty line, Gypsy, Roma and Traveller (GRT) children and some refugee and migrants groups. Young carers are another group that must be considered in relation to the PP. 1 http://www.education.gov.uk/a00198251/funding-for-deprived-pupils-set-to-double 2 Quoted from the consultation document. Page 2 of 9
2. FSM eligibility criteria will be substantially changing under the new welfare system, Universal Credit, to be introduced from 2013. 1. FSM eligibility misses out some particularly deprived groups We are concerned that some of the most deprived children in England will miss out under the PP because their parents are not entitled to or do not claim the required FSM related benefits. These children include those from GRT communities, some refugee and migrant groups that are not entitled to mainstream benefits and children from some families with parents in work but living on a low income. Families living in poverty In the current system parents in work over 16 hours and therefore entitled to Working Tax Credit, do not get FSM. Many children in working households still live below, or very close to the poverty line, but are not entitled to FSM so schools do not receive the pupil premium on account of these households. We calculate that a quarter (25%) of children living in households in receipt of working tax credit are in poverty and are therefore not entitled to FSM and the PP 3. Moreover, some families that are entitled to FSM for their children do not take up their entitlement due to stigma and a lack of information or knowledge on their entitlement. A research study from 1999 estimated that around one in five (20%) of children eligible do not take up their entitlement to FSM 4. Some of the children living in working families on low incomes will be picked up by an Ever 3 or Ever 6 indicator for the PP. However, those families that have been in work for a long period of time but still live below the poverty line will find that their child will not be covered by the PP under any of the eligibility options. Meanwhile families now on higher incomes who had previously been out of work would be covered. Those who for various reasons do not take up their entitlement to FSM will also miss out. We believe there should be a review of the current shortfall in take-up of FSM entitlement. Steps must also be taken to ensure all those eligible are claiming FSMs for example introducing cashless systems of administering FSM to reduce stigma; ensuring all relevant agencies are aware of FSM entitlement and providing more accessible information to families on FSM entitlement. This is essential to ensuring all pupils eligible for FSM are covered by the PP fund. 3 Based on 2,895 children in 1,781 households in the Family Resources Survey. In poverty measured as below 60% median income before housing costs 4 McMahon, W. and Marsh, T. (1999) Filling the Gap: free school meals, nutrition and poverty, Child Poverty Action Group. Page 3 of 9
Asylum seekers and undocumented migrant children Local authorities are under a duty to provide free school meals to children of asylum seekers receiving UK Border Agency asylum support 5. Children from families that are seeking asylum are given this support while their application is being processed. Families who remain on Section 95 support after their claim is refused will also be protected. As they receive FSM, these children from asylum seeking families are covered by the PP. However, children whose parents have no recourse to public funds and are not permitted to work due to immigration restrictions including refused asylum-seeking families would not be covered by the FSM or the PP. This potentially affects 155,000 irregular migrant children living in the UK including around 85,000 who are UKborn 6. For example, when children are born after their parent s claim for asylum has been refused, they may be supported under Section 4 7 but they are not entitled to FSM or covered by the PP. We know from the refugee children we work with and other research that these families are usually lone mothers with children who are from countries with well-documented human rights abuses or ongoing war and instability, like Afghanistan, Iraq, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, Somalia and Eritrea. In addition to fearing for their safety, many are unable to return for a variety of reasons including ongoing judicial reviews, medical issues and problems with obtaining documentation. However these problems can last for many years. In addition, irregular migrant children in families who have overstayed on their visa would have no recourse to public funds and be unable to work. Some of these families may be supported under Section 17 as children in need 8 but many are refused support from their local authority and can also be left destitute. In some cases children will be sent over on visas at a young age to stay with relatives or friends in private fostering arrangements and are at risk of abuse and exploitation including domestic servitude, sexual exploitation, benefit fraud and forced labour examples of these cases are illustrated in The Children s Society s research Hidden Children in 20099. The charity Children and Families Across Borders (CFAB) estimates there are 10,000 unregistered Private Fostering Arrangements (PFAs) in the UK, with 4,000 of the children involved in these arrangements originating from outside of the UK. 10 These groups of children are all unlikely to be eligible for FSM and therefore will not benefit from the support of PP funding. 5 Under part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. 6 Nando, S and Hughes, V (2010) Being children and undocumented in the UK: A background paper, COMPAS, University of Oxford. 7 Under Part I of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. 8 Under Part I of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. 9 Wirtz, L. (2009) Hidden children - Separated children at risk London: The Children s Society 10 CFAB (2010) 10,000 Invisible Children London: CFAB Page 4 of 9
Many of these children and families will be completely destitute with significant barriers to accessing education including financial barriers to enabling children to attend school (e.g. uniforms, books, food, school trips and transportation). Despite the duty for all local authorities to provide education to children in their area 11 and clear guidance that compulsory education should be made available to all children irrespective of immigration status 12, we still find that some schools sometimes reluctant to accept undocumented children due to issues over funding arrangements or uncertainty about entitlements. Some schools still require documentation such as passports or proof of address which families escaping persecution and those who are destitute and staying with friends or those who are made street-homeless, will be unable to provide. Therefore the pupil premium would be a way of ensuring that school places and additional support is provided for this very vulnerable group. In an answer to a parliamentary question, the Minister of State for Schools Nick Gibb stated that determining eligibility for families who do not have recourse to public funds is not currently feasible due to legal and cost barriers in accessing data concerning such families. However, we believe that the government cannot ignore the educational (and other) needs of vulnerable children from these particular groups of refugees and irregular migrants simply on the basis of data difficulties. The Government has set out to achieve the eradication of poverty and deprivation of all children in the United Kingdom, and to provide all children with the best possible start in life. However, if specific vulnerable groups of children, such as those seeking protection are excluded, largely or completely, from key resources, it is foreseeable that this will have the direct effect of prolonging their socioeconomic disadvantage. Not providing support to these children in accessing education and support from the start will mean greater costs down the line in terms of limited life chances and productivity, and greater welfare and support needs. We recommend at the very least including refused asylum seeking children supported under Section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and children supported under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 into the eligibility criteria for FSM and therefore covered by the PP. As mentioned above, where migrant families are eligible for mainstream benefits, some families do not take-up their entitlement to FSM for a variety of reasons so their children miss out on the benefits of additional PP funding. Take up of 11 Education Act 1996 places a legal duty on local authorities to secure that appropriate education is available to all children of compulsory school age (5-16) in their areas. 12 UKBA website: http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/visas-immigration/while-in-uk/rightsandresponsibilities/education/ Page 5 of 9
entitlement to benefits particularly FSM is very low in some migrant communities 13. Families from these communities can face language and cultural barriers to taking up these entitlements, for example, families that have moved to the UK from countries with limited welfare systems may not know that benefits are available to them 14. Given the high levels of poverty among some migrant families, it is important to tackle low benefit take up rates amongst migrants to ensure these families are able to access FSM and their children can then become eligible for the PP. This is particularly important among young Roma and their families who have lost the vital support provided previously by Traveller Education Services and whose attendance and attainment levels in education are well below the national average. If the PP eligibility criteria is based solely on those children who receive FSM more must be done to ensure migrant families are aware and take up their entitlement to this benefit. This should include more training for professionals who work with migrant groups around rights and entitlements to benefits, cultural awareness raising involving outreach work with these groups and more translated and accessible information on benefits for migrant communities. Children from Gypsy and Traveller communities Gypsy and Traveller children need to be central to considerations around the pupil premium as the group with the lowest educational outcomes and most in need of good quality educational support. They have the lowest educational attainment levels of all children in the UK: in 2009 around 9% obtained five GCSEs and A*-C grades including English and maths, compared to 50% for non-grt pupils 15 and they have the highest rate of permanent school exclusions compared with any other ethnicity 16. The pupil premium for Gypsy and Traveller children would be an effective way of encouraging schools, particularly those who are over-subscribed, to take on children from this community, provided the resources be used to target support at these pupils and their families in an inclusive and supportive way. Gypsy and Traveller children do not always access free school meals despite being from deprived backgrounds either because they are not eligible or because they prefer not to. We know from our work with Gypsy and Traveller families that they do not always receive FSM as claiming benefits is not part some of their culture and has 13 Child Poverty Action Group (2011) How should the child poverty strategy reduce poverty in migrant communities? A response to the Tackling Child Poverty and Improving Life Chances consultation 14 Child Poverty Unit (2009) The role of local services in increasing take up of benefits and tax credits to reduce child poverty. HM Government. 15 Parliamentary Question: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm101221/text/101221w0005.htm#101222200 1818 16 Except Black Caribbean Children Page 6 of 9
a strong stigma associated with it. We also know that Traveller Education Services have been greatly reduced across the country due to local funding pressures. Many have disappeared entirely. For example, our projects with GRT communities in different parts of England have seen an increase in referrals as schools are struggling with the closure of local traveller education services. We ve seen a lot of investment in working closely with children and families in order to improve attendance and attainment among these young people. However as the support disappears much of this great progress will be undone unless alternatives are provided. If the PP is intended to improve the educational attainment of disadvantaged children there must be a particular focus on those from Gypsy and Traveller families as the group with the lowest educational outcomes. We believe that given the scale of educational disadvantage faced by most GRT Children they should be treated as a separate group, like looked after children, who automatically qualify for the PP. Young carers Another group that should be considered in relation to PP allocation is young carers as they are also particularly vulnerable to low educational attainment. Young carers provide support to a member of their family who is sick or disabled, has mental health problems or has substance misuse problems. Their responsibilities can have a detrimental impact on their educational achievement as research has found that young carers face difficulties in attending school and finding the time and energy for their studies 17. There is not currently data available on the percentage of young carers who receive FSM. Nonetheless, the link between families with a young carer and poverty, disability and unemployment suggests that young carers should be picked up by the FSM indicator and would be allocated the PP. We are however concerned that schools may not specifically target any of this extra funding to support young carers as they are an under-identified group and can feel unsupported by their teachers 18. We believe schools should be made more aware of the barriers to learning young carers face and that schools should be encouraged to use some of the funding from the PP to support this group. 17 Dearden and Becker (2000). Growing Up Caring: Vulnerability and Transition to Adulthood - Young Carers' Experiences;Dearden and Becker (2004). Young Carers and Education. Carers UK. 18 Social Care Institute for Excellence [SCIE] (2005) Research briefing 11: The health and well-being of young carers http://www.scie.org.uk/publications/briefings/briefing11/index.asp#users; Princess Royal Trust for Carers and The Children's Society (2010) Supporting Young Carers - a Schools' Resource Survey. Page 7 of 9
2. FSM eligibility criteria will change under Universal Credit The Welfare Reform Bill is legislating for a new welfare system, Universal Credit, which will integrate out of work and in-work benefits. The introduction of Universal Credit will replace the current out of work benefits and tax credits from which entitlement to FSM is based 19. Therefore new criteria will be required to determine FSM. The government are currently considering the criteria by which Free School Meals will be set under the Universal Credit. The consequences of the changes to FSM eligibility for the allocation of the PP must be considered. The government and Department for Education must acknowledge and consider the implications of the changes to FSM eligibility criteria under the new Universal Credit on the allocation of the PP, and ensure that the Pupil Premium and Free School Meals teams are working together to ensure that changes in eligibility for FSM does not have unintended consequences on the allocation of the PP. Alternative proposal for the allocation of the PP As outlined above many disadvantaged groups of children are currently missed out under FSM eligibility for the PP and would continue to be excluded by both Ever 3 or Ever 6 options. The Department should consider further options for allocation of the Pupil Premium that would go some way towards to capturing a wider group of disadvantaged children. For example, the Department should consider how local area based deprivation indicators could be used alongside Free School Meals to allocate the PP. The index of multiple deprivation is a key local based deprivation indicator that combines a number of significant indicators of poverty, including economic, social and housing issues into a single deprivation score for small local areas in England 20. The postcode of school pupils could be used to identify whether they are from a deprived Lower Super Output Area (LSOA). The Pupil Premium could then be partially allocated to schools depending on the number of their students living in the most deprived communities. 19 Eligibility for FSM is currently based on household entitlement to: Income Support, Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, Income-related Employment and Support Allowance, support under Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the guarantee element of State Pension Credit, or Child Tax Credit, provided they are not entitled to Working Tax Credit and have an annual income (as assessed by HM Revenue & Customs) that does not exceed 16,040. 20 There are also indices for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Page 8 of 9
This would widen the PP allocation pool by ensuring that disadvantaged children who are not in receipt of FSM are also included. This would particularly extend coverage of the PP to those children from working families living in the poorest communities. However, in order to ensure children in deprived households who live in less deprived areas are not missed, it would be necessary for PP to combine an area deprivation based approach with a Free School Meals approach - for example 50% of the PP could be allocated according to the pupil's household LSOA deprivation indicator, and 50% according to household FSM receipt. Allocation of the PP according to level of pupil's local area deprivation may not cover GRT children whose families are mobile so adding them as a separate group is still essential. We recommend that eligibility for the PP is extended to include not just those children who receive FSM but also to those who live in particularly deprived super output areas based on the index of multiple deprivation. Page 9 of 9