The Department for Education “cannot demonstrate it is achieving value for money” in the way it uses £9.2 billion a year to narrow the disadvantage gap, the spending watchdog has warned.
The National Audit Office said in a report published today that the department had “limited evidence” on how well almost half of disadvantage funding is spent.
The findings are based on an assessment of the DfE under the management of the previous Conservative government.
Reacting to the study, the department said it would bring about “real change by integrating childcare and early years into the wider education system as a national priority”.
It will also deliver “free breakfast clubs in every primary school” and develop “an ambitious strategy to reduce child poverty”.
“Too many children are being held back by their background, and this report shines a light on the work that is needed to break down barriers to opportunity and improve the life chances of all children.”
Here are the key findings…
1. DfE can’t demonstrate value for money
The report warned that “more than 90 per cent” of the £9.2 billion spent to support disadvantaged children’s attainment is not ringfenced, meaning “schools can choose how to spend this money”.
It found the department did hold “some” impact data for “interventions, which can help schools consider a ‘menu’ of evidence-based approaches when spending their pupil premium”.
But the DfE “has little understanding of whether schools spend the funding they receive, whether they spend it for the intended purposes, or whether this represents value for money.”
Officials seek “to hold providers to account in a proportionate way, including by considering exam results,” but they do “not have a systematic approach to understand how providers use the money”.
They instead rely on “local accountability mechanisms such as scrutiny by school governors”.
2. ‘Limited’ evidence about funding streams
Disadvantage and deprivation funding channeled to schools via the national funding formula represents 47 per cent of the DfE’s annual £9.2 billion spend on disadvantage.
But the NAO found the DfE had “limited or no evidence to support the effectiveness” of those funding streams.
This means the DfE has “limited evidence on how well almost half of its £9.2 billion estimated spend supports the attainment of disadvantaged children, which impacts its ability to make well-informed decisions”.
3. Funding changes can’t be explained
In 2023-24, disadvantage and deprivation‑related funding provided through the NFF rose to £4.1 billion. This represented a 10 per cent “real‑terms increase since the formula’s introduction in 2018-19”.
However, the government “cannot explain” why it increased the amount of cash available through the channel and “not, for example, pupil premium”, which fell by 3 per cent over the same period.
This is despite the department believing there is “better evidence of pupil premium effectively supporting” children most in need.
But the report added the “impact and effectiveness” of the pupil premium had not been assessed since its launch in 2011. An impact evaluation, commissioned last year, is due to be released this autumn.
4. Gap widening for school leavers…
The NAO noted that DfE “had made progress narrowing the gap” between disadvantaged children and their peers prior to the pandemic, “although this was starting to stall”.
It subsequently widened as Covid “particularly impacted disadvantaged” youngsters.
The gap “narrowed slightly” between 2021-22 and 2022-23 for those in key stage 2 but “continues to grow” at key stage 4.
“For key stage 4, the gap is now wider than it was in 2011-12 and for key stage 2 wider than in 2012-13,” the report said.
In April, the DfE described the risk of overall attainment and the disadvantage gap impacting its objectives as “critical and likely”.
5. …but no set target for reduction
While one of the DfE’s strategic priorities is “to reduce the disadvantage attainment gap”, it does not have targets “for how much it wants to reduce it by, and by when”.
Despite not having an “evaluation strategy to address gaps in its understanding”, officials told the NAO that they planed to further develop their “evidence base for some interventions”.
They have also commissioned studies to assess “the impact of educational recovery reforms”, but had “no wider evaluation strategy to consider and address gaps in its understanding”.
6. …and end of NTP set to make things worse
The £1.12 billion national tutoring programme (NTP) was introduced four years ago as one of the department’s “main initiatives to address learning loss” from the pandemic and to address the attainment gap.
It subsidised individual or small-group tutoring in schools, with a focus on supporting disadvantaged children.
But it will end in 2024-25, with leaders expected “to choose whether to use their core budgets, including pupil premium, to cover tutoring costs”.
“In December 2023, DfE’s schools board assessed the risk related to the lack of funding for tutoring after summer 2024 as red/amber, with the chance of the risk materialising as ‘possible’ and the potential impact as ‘critical’.
“It considers tutoring will not be embedded in the school system, which would negatively impact disadvantaged children and the disadvantage attainment gap.”
7. The recommendations
The NAO concluded the DfE did not have an understanding of the outcomes from a “significant proportion of its expenditure on disadvantaged children” or a “fully integrated view of its interventions”.
This, along with the lack of progress made in reducing the disadvantage attainment gap, means the department “cannot demonstrate it is achieving value for money”.
The watchdog told officials to set out the progress they expected “to make in reducing the disadvantage attainment gap over the coming years, including what good would look like”. This will help them better understand where changes of approach may be needed.
It said DfE should outline how it will “engage with wider government to help develop a shared vision, robust joint risk assessment, clear responsibilities, and an understanding of how respective departmental priorities could be better integrated”.
Officials were also advised to develop their “understanding of the capacity and capability of schools” and monitor whether they pay for tutoring once the NTP ends, before reflecting “on any further support”.
