Publication title over two lines maximumSUB HEADER TO GO HEREMONTH YEARFIFA STATUTESRegulations Gove.
2024-08-16
41页
5星级
Southern AfricaGlobalUnited KingdomCentral&South AmericaBrazilIndiaIndonesiaMacauJapanSpainSouth Kor.
2024-08-14
137页
5星级
The Global State of PlayReport and recommendations on quality physical educationPublished in 2024 by.
2024-08-14
98页
5星级
Author:Oisn GilmoreJune 2024The state we are in:inequality in Ireland 2024About TASCTASC is an indep.
2024-08-13
74页
5星级
Fresh ConsultingWorkshop Methods for InnovationTable of ContentsIntroduction Why are workshops valuable?Aligning peopleFraming problems Exploring possibilitiesMaking a plan3591216203IntroductionCollaboration is the cornerstone to effective problem solving and innovation.Effective methods for facilitating collaboration in or-ganizations can make the difference between highly successful market leaders and industry laggards.In a 2015 study by Google,more than half(56%)of the executives surveyed ranked a collaboration-relat-ed measure as the primary factor impacting their organizations overall profitability.1 Research by Nielsen shows that ideas developed by teams of three or more people have 156%greater appeal with consumers than those developed by teams where just one or two people have played a hands-on role.2Whether its a large organization like Google or Apple building an entire campus to encourage col-laborative encounters,or a small business holding monthly all-hands meetings,collaboration takes many forms and can have varying results.However,achieving effective collaboration comes with its fair share of challenges.In particular,the shift towards digital workspaces and decentralized teams has led to an increased need for facilitation to address the key challenges of effective digital collaboration:techno-logical hurdles and a lack of natural serendipity.Serendipity has played a key role in innova-tion ranging from the discovery of penicillin to the founding of Wikipedia.3 For example,in 2000 Procter&Gamble deployed“Connect&Develop”,a program that powers product innovation by con-necting its internal research teams with unexpect-ed opportunities offered by an external network of experts and entrepreneurial firms.4 However,in a digital environment,there is a huge reduction of chance encounters and unplanned discussion.Whereas individuals might have been discussing challenges or collaborating naturally in the office environment,digital serendipity is relegated to planned meetings.This creates limited time periods where dense amounts of collaborative work need to be accomplished.4The other key challenge stems from the implementation of new technologies to facili-tate meetings and communication.Every individual in a company will have different levels of comfort and expertise when it comes to using digital platforms for collabora-tive work.A McKinsey study found that 87%of executives were either already experienc-ing or expecting skill gaps in their workforce within the next couple of years.5 Helping employees make the most of new tools,as well as identifying the most effective methods for the problems at hand,creates an effective toolkit for a digital work culture.This paper explores how different workshop methods can be used to foster collabora-tion and effective problem-solving across a variety of challenges.We will discuss how workshops can be a versatile method for both connecting people and creating action,especially in a digital environment.We will define what differentiates a workshop from a standard meeting,explain what a workshop uniquely provides,and finally,go through our framework for organizing workshop activities to make the most of shared time.Many of the exercises referenced in this paper are sourced from the book Gamestorming by Dave Gray,Sunni Brown,and James Macanufo.This is a great fundamental resource for workshop facilitation and planning thats provided much inspiration for our own teams at Fresh.It is worth checking out and has provided much inspiration for our own teams.Additional information and resources can be found by visiting:Generational preferences at work6Baby Boomer(1946-1964)Generation X(1965-1979)Millennial(1980-1997)Generation Z(1998-2020)In-Person MeetingVirtual Online Meeting(No Video)Virtual Online Meeting(Video)EmailTeam WorkspacesInstant Message(IM)Enterprise Social NetworkingPersistent ChatConversational User InterfacesAlways preferMostly PreferSomewhat PreferOccasionally PreferDo not prefer5Why are workshops valuable?Through the use of activities,workshops engage participants in active problem solving.What differentiates a workshop from a meeting?As Oxford Languages defines it,a meeting is“an assembly of people,especially the members of a society or committee,for discussion”whereas a workshop is“a meeting at which a group of people engage in intensive discussion and activity on a particular subject or project.”These definitions capture something fundamental about workshops:workshops are working sessions.Through the use of activities,workshops engage participants in active problem solving as opposed to standard discussion.Workshops bring individ-uals together to formally collaborate on a wide variety of potential challenges or opportunities.Workshops are valuable because they break up routine thinking and discussion patterns to create a focused container for understanding challenges,defining goals,exploring solutions,and generating direction.Improving meeting efficacyAccording to a study at the University of North Carolina,“71%of senior managers said meetings are unproductive and inefficient.Similarly,65%said meetings keep them from completing their own work,while 62%said meetings miss opportunities to bring the team closer together.”7While workshop methods are most effective when applied to a specific problem or goal,there are still methods that can be incorporated into standard meetings to improve communication.Activities like WhoDo,where participants identify the people and actions associated with next steps,clarifying roles and responsibilities,can easily be slotted into the end of a daily standup or project kickoff meeting.6Organizing and aligning groups around problemsWorkshop methods can be especially useful for fostering effective communication for creating goals and shared understanding.There are many methods which allow groups to clarify the problem identified,share their unique perspectives,and come together on defining clear goals.Activities such as Altitude allow individuals to explore a problem area from multiple levels of scope,while an activity like Context Map can be used to clarify why the specified challenge exists and is important.Generating direction and momentum Making decisions can prove to be a paralyzing point for many teams.One study by Harvard Business Review found that“57%of newly appointed exec-utives said that decisions were more complicated and difficult than they expected.”8 Whether this difficulty stems from too much data,high levels of complexity,or a lack of strategic guidance,formalizing decision making methods can help ease the cognitive burden.Workshops for innovation provide clear methods and activities for choosing solutions,and also create momentum so that decisions reach implementation.Working with across business functionsCross-functional teams have many benefits,including fostering employee engagement,building a collaborative culture,and even increasing pro-ductivity.Yet,fostering effective communication among professionals with differing backgrounds can be a complicated task.“Harvard Business Review reported that during a study of 95 teams in 25 leading corporations all selected by an inde-pendent panel,close to 75%of the cross-functional teams were shown to be dysfunctional.”9By incorporating workshop methods for innovation into meetings,an organization can create tighter schedules and more productive communication.It can use methods to clarify specifications and ensure they align with company goals.Finally,there are many methods to map out the timeline and ex-pectations of a project to foresee potential chal-lenges,prepare an accurate budget,and produce satisfactory results.Exploring all dimensions of a problemA study published in the Association for Computing Machinery found a direct correlation between the number of perspectives used in defining a problem with the number of solutions generated later.10 Workshops are uniquely suited to revealing deeper understanding of a problem or observed behavior,and thus,generating more potential solutions.Whether it is through communication activities that allow diverse participants to share their knowledge and perspective,or user interview activities that allow group members to further explore a given space or opportunity,innovation workshop methods can enable a deeper understanding of a given topic.57%of new executives said decisions were more complicated and difficult than expected.HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW7Providing structure to think through problems and organize complexityWorkshop activities are great for dissecting com-plexity and working through tough problems.By utilizing existing frameworks,or breaking down problems into pieces that can be systematically worked through,workshops are the ideal form for tackling difficult challenges.An activity like Force Field Analysis can be used to look at all of the different forces in the context of a problem and understand their impact.This enables a team to compartmentalize each of those forces and create action plans to counteract or encourage different forces strategically.Creating the space for all voices to be heardAs remote audio and video conferencing continue to grow in adoption,ensuring that all voices are heard and a diversity of opinions are shared remains a consistent challenge.A study by SHRM states that 56%of respondents said that“group conversationssuch as during meetingsare more likely to produce miscommunication than one-on-one interactions.”11A neutral and trained workshop facilitator adds value by selecting methods that encourage partic-ipants to all share their thinking,or selectively iden-tifying members to share when relevant.A facil-itator can control the flow of dialogue and ensure everyone has a voice.Dysfunction defined as failing at least 3 of the 5 following criteria:12 Meeting a planned budget Staying on schedule Adhering to specification Meeting customer expectations Maintaining alignment with the companys corporate goals.A research paper published by PLOS Com-putational Biology discusses a breakdown of rules for understanding and measuring workshop effectiveness:13Create a planSetting goals effectivelyBalancing time,effort,and costsUse your knowledge and skillsCreating metrics purposefullyUnderstanding biasApply techniques to understand the impactGathering feedback before,during and afterHarnessing gamification for engagementMeasuring impact on those who did not attend8The Four Ps of WorkshopsPeopleUsing facilitation techniques to make people feel well-oriented,energized,and involvedProblemFraming the challenge at hand properly and gathering input from stakeholdersPossibilitiesDoing divergent and convergent thinking to explore then narrow on solutionsPlanMaking decisions and prioritizing efforts to move towards a defined goalA simple framework for approaching a workshop starts by thinking about the general flow of the group problem-solving process.This begins with organizing and aligning participants,under-standing and defining the problem,exploring and clarifying possible ideas,and finally,creating an execution plan.9Aligning peopleSkilled facilitation supports diverse participation,fosters inclusion,and maintains group energy.Workshop participants need to have a clear understanding of their role in the group,expectations around participation,appropriate boundaries for discussion topics,and an understanding of desired outcomes.A capable facilitator can establish these norms for the group,encourage sharing,keep participants engaged,and build momentum towards a goal.Good facilitation can improve the output of a workshop,so its worth designating a neutral facilitator to get the most out of participants in guiding them through the workshop activities.A good facilitator is a thoughtful catalyst,a skilled conductor,and an inspiring coach.CatalystConductorCoach10Key Skills of a Veteran FacilitatorFlexibilityListens:Takes into consideration the input of all of the members and adapts based on what is heardUses a mixed agenda:Prepares a variety of activities or discussion points to suit the needs of the groupIs comfortable not being the expert:Asks naive questions and removes bias from their opinions.Being a subject matter expert as a facilitator often makes it difficult to be impartial and incorporate participants feedbackMomentumStarts with an icebreaker:Builds group rapport with low-stakes funAsks naive questions:Ensures that no assumptions are left unspoken by forcing participants to answer questions that would otherwise go unansweredKeeps people energized:Ensures engagement and productivity by constantly energizing the participantsKnows when to take breaks:Paying attention to the emotional and physical needs of the group is paramountBalanceLays some ground rules:At the beginning of any workshop,a good facilitator discusses with partici-pants the expected practices for engagement.This includes encouraging participants to stay positive and listen to everyones insights,endorsing open and productive conversation,and being process orientedMaintains an open mind:The facilitator should be removed from the participation to ensure no bias enters into the conversation.By staying impartial,a facilitator can foster discussion and capture all members participationAcknowledges conflict:Encourages and facilitates productive friction to analyze all sides of a problem and reach fully evaluated conclusionsActively balances role power:Balancing power ensures higher-level managers dont shut down valuable insights from employees.It also ensures that all ideas get heard and solutions will reach their full potential11Example Activity Memory MovesTime:5-10 minutesMemory Moves is a fun activity for smaller groups to get everyone involved and raise the energy.It prepares the group for fun and active participation in workshop activities.1.Each person makes up a simple move to a central beat.It should be done in a couple seconds and be visible on camera(if remote).2.Everyone does their move and introduces them-selves.Watch and remember everybodys move.3.The facilitator starts by doing their own move and then passing someone elses move,without saying their name.4.That person must catch their own move by doing it and then pass to someone else,by doing the move of the person they are passing to next.5.If you delay in catching your move,or cant remember somebody elses move to pass it to,then youre out!Go through until everyones had a chance to make a move.12Framing problemsFraming a challenge correctly is critical to generating the right solutions.Alignment focuses a team on the goals and problems at hand.This means identifying the right problem to tackle,gathering input from multiple stakeholders,or breaking down the parts of a larger problem.As Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg wrote in his Harvard Business Review article:“In surveys of 106 C-suite ex-ecutives who represented 91 private and public-sec-tor companies in 17 countries,I found that a full 85%strongly agreed or agreed that their organizations were bad at problem diagnosis,and 87%strongly agreed or agreed that this flaw carried significant costs.”14 Identifying and aligning around problems requires organizing a team,gathering information,and creating agreement on prioritization.Rephrase and focusThink of new ways to phrase your problem and adjust your focus to better alignChallenge assumptionsQuestion your groups assumption and validate them throughout the conversationVisualize the problemDraw a picture,diagram,or map to help align multiple perspectivesFrame questions,not statementsQuestions open up communication,whereas state-ments can close it downAlignment Principles13Example Activity Partnership CanvasTime:60-90 minutesThe Partnership Canvas creates a visual framework for a team to analyze the concurrent needs among different organizations that make up a value-cre-ation system.It helps reframe problems into potential opportunities to create connections.Source:Gamestorming151.Describe the aim or goal of the partnership for your business.2.Identify the desired assets in their respective partners business model.3.Teams sketches out a partnership canvas from their own teams perspective using sticky notes to define each building block.4.Bring teams to the negotiating table and present.Check for fit and common understanding.5.Create agreement on the created value for each partner and define next steps.14Develop a common understanding to uncover valuable insights.On top of aligning around a problem,often groups need new perspectives to better understand the opportunity or problem at hand.Incorporat-ing empathy into problem-solving enables more robust and validated direction.According to the 2014 Nielsen Breakthrough Innovation Report,“an analysis of 61,000 SKUs representing more than 12,000 new launches since 2011,3 in 4 fast moving consumer goods(FMCG)launches fail within a year.Those that succeed focus on walking in the shoes of the consumer to uncover key demand-driven in-sights”.16 Creating deep empathetic understand-ing enables far more effective problem identifica-tion and solution development.On top of the rising importance of customer empathy,understanding relevant stakeholders and team members can also be the differentiator for succeeding in complex projects.Workshop methods focused on developing a common understanding can be used toward a variety of outcomes.First off,theyre commonly used to gain insight into the behaviors of target users,either in their daily life or in relation to a product.Understanding activities are also extremely well suited to getting feedback or observing critiques from customers or stakeholders.Finally,focusing on empathy can help a team understand the potential uses for a product from other perspectives.Interacting with actual customersBringing in the consumer voice can provide per-spective and insight that can redefine a product.Seeing the way users interact and the comments they have can provide much needed clarity on how to improve a product or reach a target.Observing and recordingRecord more than what interviewees say.Looking at their body language,emotions,or even tone can greatly impact the interpretation of their comments.Interpreting the deeper meaningsTry to build a narrative out of an interview.Why are they saying the things they say?What matters to them?How does this product interact with their life and goals?Understanding Principles15EXAMPLE ACTIVITY Empathy MapsTime:15-90 minutesEmpathy maps are a way to visually inventory all the aspects of a particular users perspective on a problem,experience,product,or service.They help build common understanding and help put you in“someone elses shoes.”Source:Gamestorming17 1.Print or draw out an empathy map canvas before a user interview.2.During the user interview,make note of every-thing the user says or does.3.Also make note of what the user might be thinking that motivates the things they are saying,and how they feel about the different things they discuss.4.After the interview,organize all of the notes the group took onto one large empathy map.5.Group notes in each category and discuss to distill insights.16Exploring possibilitiesExplore lots of possible solutions with divergent thinking.Exploration is the divergent phase of a workshop.This is the point at which a problem has been identi-fied,the team is aligned,and the next goal is gener-ating possible solutions.Strong methods for ideation and collaboration provides the best foundation for developing robust solutions.A study by the Nielson Norman Group surveying 257 UX-related professionals found that“those with very effective idea-generation processes collaborate more often and rely less on individual ideation.”18 They also found the biggest challenge to be a lack of time allocation for idea generation.Thus workshop methods that promote collaborative idea generation can enable effective ideation in a provided time.While most exploration activities are used to generate lots of ideas,they also can be used to col-laborate on new ideas or explore potential spaces and opportunities.These methods are also well suited to challenging assumptions and stretching thinking.Managing time effectivelyConstraints help creativity thrive,so put time limits on ideation exercises to draw out as many ideas as possible and move towards group collaboration quicker.Ideating alone firstGroup brainstorming is highly effective,however,it can oftentimes be tunnel-visioned.Coming to a session with a set of ideas created as pre-work,or working alone before joining forces can provide the group more fodder to develop the best solutions.Defer judgementSome of the best insights come from ideas that could initially be rejected.Understanding different aspects of any idea can help with ultimately understanding what makes a good idea.Encouraging individuals to share all their ideas,including the ones they view as“bad”helps the group reach success.Encourage wild ideasBreak the mold to develop something new.What might seem impossible can inspire real change.Exploration Principles17EXAMPLE ACTIVITY Crazy 8sTime:15-20 minutesCrazy 8s is a fun and fast way to generate a lot of ideas quickly,reserving judgement and using visuals to spur new thinking.Source:Google Design Sprints191.Task each participant to fold their piece of paper into 8 sections,then unfold to see all of the boxes.2.Set the timer for 8 minutes.3.Participants should sketch one idea in each rectangle,trying to fill in all 8 sections in the time allotted.4.When the timer goes off,all pens are down.5.Each participant should choose their top ideas from the 8 ideas and summarize the sketch into a single statement or a“one line creative concept.”18Establish boundaries to converge on a solution While wild ideas are great,it is important solutions can be grounded in the goals and capabilities of the organization.Understanding the needs and constraints of a solution during ideation allows the results of the work to be far more applicable and valuable.A meta study by the Harvard Business Review exploring 145 empirical studies on the effects of restraints on creativity and innovation found that individuals,teams,and organizations actually benefit from reasonable constraints.20 On top of aligning solutions to business objectives or strategic constraints,its also important to clarify roles,and provide boundaries for individual re-sponsibility.Business author Ferdinand Fournies,in Coaching for Improved Performance,reports from a survey of 25,000 managers and supervisors,“the number one reason for people not doing what they are supposed to do is that they dont know what they are supposed to do.”21 Formalizing the alloca-tion of roles and responsibilities sets up a project for success and helps individuals understand expecta-tions.Boundary activities on the whole have three main applications.First is understanding the requirements for a project.This includes identifying the constraints,goals,or KPIs that need to be achieved.Second,boundary activities can be used for defining mile-stones and setting expectations.Finally,boundary methods can be used to clarify roles and responsi-bilities,and assign tasks.Check-in to acknowledge accountabilitiesMake sure everyone in the workshop knows what theyre responsible for by simply checking-in.Getting a confirmation from everyone involved helps drive individual ownership.Ask clarifying questionsEngage the team by asking clarifying questions to make sure that there is common understanding about the right constraints.Use constraints to provide focusDefine important considerations and constraints to evaluate solutions against to help converge on the right solutions.Boundary Principles19EXAMPLE ACTIVITY WhoDoTime:20 minutesWhoDo is a quick and easy way to engage team members at the end of a workshop to align on roles and responsibilities for next steps by creating a simple chart that helps drive clarity.Source:Gamestorming 221.Start with the vision.Write out/visualize the goal.2.Draw a two-column matrix and write“WHO”on the left and“DO”on the right.3.Ask:Who is involved in making this happen?Who is the decision maker?Who has needed resources?Who may be an obstacle?Whose support is needed?Write down all these“Whos”on the left side.4.For each WHO,ask:“What do they need to do,or do differently?What actions will build toward the big goal?5.Prioritize the WHO-DO pairs and identify which ones are the most important to your cause.20Making a planDefine a direction rooted in a clear mission and vision.Finally,we have direction.These activities are focused around creating actionable momentum to take the previous work forward.This can include ac-tivities for discussing or selecting the best solutions,to activities that help build a game plan and assign responsibilities to individuals.Overall,ending a meeting with a direction activity can help teams continue to build and progress after the group separates.One reason direction activities are vital is due to the difficulty that comes with decision making,espe-cially when there are many options to choose from.One famous book written by American psychologist Barry Schwartz called The Paradox of Choice details his thesis that the more options there are to choose from,the more difficult and unhappy a consumer is when making decisions.Workshop methods can not only share this burden across a team,through methods such as dot voting,but also create solid evaluation metrics to make those decisions easier,such as evaluating impact vs.effort for initiatives.Referring to your North Star:Understanding the groups high-level goals,and always referencing back to them when making decisions about moving forward keeps product vision aligned.Breaking problems into partsLarge problems can be overwhelming,so breaking them down into parts lets the group tackle them piece by piece.This increases efficiency and clarifies tasks and timeline.Broaden,then narrowDont focus on a specific direction immediately,but rather maintain a broad focus on the goal.After potentials have been identified,focus in to pick a specific direction,and clarify all the details around that decision.Direction Principles21In 2002,Google ran an experiment to see how the business would run without managers and learned quite a few lessons about the value managers bring.As Michael Schneider notes in his Inc.article,one of the main benefits managers provide is that they establish a mission.He notes that Googles experi-ment23 identified a strong mission as:Conveying a compelling picture of the future Appeals to all those with a stake in the mission Is clear enough to guide decision-making Is general enough to accommodate changing business conditions Can be successfully explained within two minutesDirection activities provide value by unblocking teams that are stuck and establishing clear vision.By providing small groups the ability to develop and communicate mission statements,these activities motivate action and clarify work for the team.MissionVisionStrategyRoadmapExecutionWhat you aspire to beWhat youre doing22EXAMPLE ACTIVITY Impact vs.Effort MatrixTime:20-30 minutesWhoDo is a quick and easy way to engage team members at the end of a workshop to align on roles and responsibilities for next steps by creating a simple chart that helps drive clarity.Source:Gamestorming24 1.Draw a 2x2 canvas and label the axis with effort and impact.2.List out ideas from previous ideation exercise on sticky notes.3.Plot each idea on the matrix based on the effort to complete and the impact the idea might have.4.Focus on the ideas in the top left corner:these are the easy wins.Avoid the ideas in the lower right corner:these are the difficult ones with little impact.Consider the ideas in lower left and upper right corners,as they may be worth the effort.EFFORTLow impact,low effort.(Maybe)High effort,low impact.(Do not do this!)High effort,high impact.(Maybe)High impact,low effort.(This is the one!)IMPACT23As remote work becomes increasingly normalized,effective team collaboration is now more critical than ever.Putting in a little effort to facilitate group workshop exercises can help teams build clarity,momentum,and enthusiasm around a particular challenge.By stretching their thinking,teams can become more effective at identifying problems,establishing vision,generating solutions,and executing strategies.Sometimes the solution to a complex challenge appears serendipitously when unexpected connections are made during atypical circumstances.Workshops can unlock valuable insights by creating optimal conditions for new mental,social,and visual connections to be made.24References1.Working Better Together.Google/Raconteur, Fostering Collaboration Can Boost Innovation.Culture Amp, Key to Innovation:Serendipity,Optimity Advisors, and Innovation.Open Organization,25 Apr.2010,open- Gunjan Sinha.Why Do Your Employees Resist New Tech?Harvard Business Review,21 Aug.2020,hbr.org/2020/08/why-do-your-employees-resist-new-tech.6.Collaboration Changes In The Digital Workplace:Top 3 Challenges.BDO Digital,26 Dec.2018, A.,et al.Stop the Meeting Madness.Harvard Business Review,July 2017,hbr.org/2017/07/stop-the-meeting-madness.8.Carucci,Ron.Leaders,Stop Avoiding Hard Deci-sions.Harvard Business Review,13 Apr.2018,hbr.org/2018/04/leaders-stop-avoiding-hard-decisions.9.Tabrizi,Behnam.75%Of Cross-Functional Teams Are Dysfunctional.Harvard Business Review,23 June 2015,hbr.org/2015/06/75-of-cross-functional-teams-are-dysfunctional.10.Wang,Yan,et al.The Effect of Multiple-Perspective Thinking on Problem Solving.ICLS,June 2006,dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.5555/1150034.1150152?down-load=true.11.Wilkie,Dana.Afraid to Speak Your Mind at Work?So Are Many of Your Colleagues.SHRM,25 Sept.2017,www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/em-ployee-relations/pages/communication-.aspx.12.Tabrizi,Behnam.75%Of Cross-Functional Teams Are Dysfunctional.Harvard Business Review,23 June 2015,hbr.org/2015/06/75-of-cross-functional-teams-are-dysfunctional.13.Sufi,Shoaib,et al.Ten Simple Rules for Measuring the Impact of Workshops.PLOS Computational Biology,14 Aug.2018,www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6116923/.14.Wedell-Wedellsborg,Thomas.Are You Solving the Right Problems?Harvard Business Review,Feb.2017,hbr.org/2017/01/are-you-solving-the-right-problems.2515.Gray,Dave.Building Partnerships.Gamestorming,14 Nov.2014, Stats and Facts for Business.Brand Genetics,10 Oct.2019, Map.Gamestorming,14 July 2017, in Practice:How Effective UX Teams Generate Ideas.Nielson Norman Group,29 Oct.2017, 8s.Design Sprints,Google, al.Creativity and Innovation Under Constraints:A Cross-Disciplinary Integrative Review.Journal of Management,29 Oct.2018, with Role Clarity Are Substantially More Successful than Teams Without.Organizational Diagnostics and Development,www.theoddcompany.ie/oddblog/teams-with-role-clar-ity-are-substantially-more-successful-than-teams-without/.22.Gray,Dave.WhoDo.Gamestorming,15 Oct.2010, Trains Its Managers to Create a Team Vision With This Framework.You Can Use It,Too.Inc.Magazine,20 Nov.2020, Matrix.Gamestorming,13 Nov.2010, DIRECTORNick ParishNick is an award-winning writer and editor with nearly 20 years of expe-rience in his field.He is the former President,Americas,at Contagious,and brings his vision and storytelling expertise to partner relationships.INNOVATION CONSULTANTRyan OttingerRyan is an innovation consultant with an interdisciplinary back-ground in computer science,UX design,and research and statistics.27Authors&CollaboratorsDIGITAL CONTENT STRATEGISTBen SpencerBen is a Digital Content Strategist with a passion for blending design and writing into a cohesive product narrative.DESIGN STRATEGY LEADMaximillian WestMax brings over 12 years of experience in brand,strategy,and experience design,working with startups,Fortune 100 companies,and international NGOs.28Authors&CollaboratorsCEOJeff DanceJeff brings years of experience to the technology space,overseeing hundreds of creative projects.DESIGN STRATEGISTSavannah RankSavannah is a design strategist skilled in iteration and collaboration,with a background in UX design,UX research,and brand strategy.
2024-08-13
28页
5星级
1 Emily Hunt July 2024 Closing the Forgotten Gap:Implementing a 16-19 Student Premium About the Education Policy Institute The Education Policy Institute is an independent,impartial,and evidence-based research institute that promotes high quality education outcomes,regardless of social background.We achieve this through data-led analysis,innovative research and high-profile events.Education can have a transformative effect on the life chances of young people,enabling them to fulfil their potential,have successful careers,and grasp opportunities.As well as having a positive impact on the individual,good quality education and child well-being also promote economic productivity and a cohesive society.Through our research,we provide insight,commentary,and a constructive critique of education policy in England shedding light on what is working and where further progress needs to be made.Our research and analysis span a young persons journey from the early years through to entry to the labour market.Our core research areas include:Benchmarking English Education School Performance,Admissions,and Capacity Early Years Development Social Mobility and Vulnerable Learners Accountability,Assessment,and Inspection Curriculum and Qualifications Teacher Supply and Quality Education Funding Higher Education,Further Education,and Skills Our experienced and dedicated team works closely with academics,think tanks,and other research foundations and charities to shape the policy agenda.About the Authors Emily Hunt is Associate Director for Social Mobility and Vulnerable Learners at the Education Policy Institute(EPI).Emilys previous publications include EPIs 2024 Annual Report,research on pupil absence,outcomes for children in social care and school choice.Prior to joining EPI,Emily worked at the Department for Education as an economist from 2002 to 2016.Acknowledgements This report has been kindly funded by Unbound Philanthropy.Unbound Philanthropy is an independent private grant-making foundation that invests in leaders and organizations in the US and UK working to build a vibrant,welcoming society and just immigration system.This publication includes analysis of the National Pupil Database(NPD):https:/www.gov.uk/government/collections/national-pupil-database The Department for Education is responsible for the collation and management of the NPD and is the Data Controller of NPD data.Any inferences or conclusions derived from the NPD in this publication are the responsibility of the Education Policy Institute and not the Department for Education.This work contains statistical data from ONS which is Crown Copyright.The use of the ONS statistical data in this work does not imply the endorsement of the ONS in relation to the interpretation or analysis of the statistical data.This work uses research datasets which may not exactly reproduce National Statistics aggregates.The analysis was carried out in the Secure Research Service,part of the Office for National Statistics.Contents Contents.3 Why do we need a student premium?.4 Who would be eligible?.5 How much would it cost?.5 Wider implementation issues.6 Recommendations.6 1.Rationale for a 16-19 student premium.8 Building on the pupil premium.9 Student premium as a funding mechanism.12 2.Eligibility criteria.16 Free school meal eligibility in year 11.16 Students in long-term poverty.16 Disadvantage in the 16-19 funding formula.18 Supplementing free school meal eligibility with area deprivation.19 Summary.20 3.Costings.22 Funding for disadvantage pre and post-16.22 Scenario 1:matching the secondary school pupil premium rate.25 Scenario 2:matching the per student rate at which disadvantage is funded in secondary schools.27 Scenario 3:matching the overall proportion of funding allocated to disadvantage in secondary schools.28 Other considerations.30 Summary.30 4.Wider implementation issues.32 Data sharing.32 Building the evidence base.33 Accountability for disadvantaged students.34 5.Conclusion.36 Appendix:Data and methodology.38 Student counts.38 Student Premium policy costings.38 References.40 4 Executive summary Building on previous research by the Education Policy Institute(EPI),this paper makes the case for a 16-19 student premium and considers who might be in scope,how much such a policy might cost,and wider considerations around its implementation.Why do we need a student premium?Economically disadvantaged students are over three grades behind their peers across their best three subjects by the time they finish their 16-19 education.1 Whilst this partly reflects the educational inequalities that disadvantaged students experience in earlier phases,they also fall further behind during the 16-19 phase.2 The gap is wider still for disadvantaged students in long-term poverty at almost four grades,and the harmful effects of disadvantage continue to affect students longer-term outcomes on entry to the labour market.Disadvantaged young people earn around 10 per cent less by age 28 than young people from non-disadvantaged backgrounds,even when holding constant their educational attainment both pre-and post-16.3 The sizeable attainment gap indicates that existing resources in 16-19 education are not commensurate with the additional challenges of supporting disadvantaged students,particularly in the context of the further education sector having seen the largest spending cuts of any phase of education in the decade after 2010.4 To prevent disadvantaged students from falling further behind,there is a strong case for additional targeted government funding for disadvantaged students in 16-19 education.We propose that this should be in the form of a student premium which would:o have the purpose of improving the educational attainment of economically disadvantaged students and narrowing the disadvantage gap;o be additional to existing 16-19 funding rather than displace it;and o be a fixed,per-student amount received by institutions.Potential advantages of introducing a student premium as its own targeted funding mechanism rather than using existing 16-19 funding include:sharpening institutions focus on economic disadvantage;providing certainty over the amount of funding per eligible student;stimulating the market for interventions aimed at improving outcomes and developing the 16-19 evidence base on what works;and driving impact.However,there are also challenges with introducing a student premium as its own funding mechanism such as adding further complexity to the existing 16-19 funding system and the potential for more bureaucracy with any associated accountability system.1 David Robinson et al.,EPI Annual Report 2024.2 Tuckett,Robinson,and Bunting,Measuring the Disadvantage Gap in 16-19 Education.3 Elena Lisauskaite et al.,Going Further.Further Education,Disadvantage and Social Mobility.4 Drayton et al.,IFS Annual Report on Education Spending in England 2023.5 Who would be eligible?We have modelled a range of eligibility criteria for a student premium to demonstrate the potential numbers of students in-scope and the trade-offs in targeting disadvantage in different ways.In secondary schools,pupils eligibility for free school meals in the six years prior to finishing secondary school(FSM6)is used to identify which pupils attract pupil premium funding.However,while further education institutions have an obligation to provide a free meal to students,take-up is low,and the data are inconsistent.We therefore propose pupils eligibility during secondary school(FSM6)as the starting point for student premium eligibility.The key drawback of the FSM6 definition is that it would miss students who did not have a FSM6 record in year 11(for example,those recently arriving to the English education system from abroad),as well as students whose financial circumstances had deteriorated since year 11.For these students for whom FSM6 wont be a reliable indicator we propose the use of area-based measure of deprivation based on where a student currently lives(the Index of Multiple Deprivation or IMD).Under this proposed EPI definition which combines student-level and area-level measures of economic disadvantage,we estimate that 28 per cent of students in 16-19 education would be eligible for a student premium or 329,000 students in 2021/22.This EPI definition is more complex than the other definitions that we consider but is our preferred choice as,by combining measures at both individual and area-levels,it does a better job of targeting disadvantage.5 Using a measure based solely on FSM6,we estimate that 22 per cent of students in 16-19 education would be eligible for a student premium or around 260,000 students.Using the Department for Educations definition of disadvantage in the 16-19 funding formula which targets low prior attainment alongside area-based deprivation would result in twice as many students being eligible for a student premium:45 per cent,or 536,000 students.Whilst having benefits in terms of reaching other groups of students with additional needs such as SEND,it would dilute the focus on economic disadvantage and result in a much higher policy cost(or lower student premium rate if the quantum of funding was fixed).The Departments definition would still exclude around 70,000 students who are themselves disadvantaged(on the FSM6 measure)despite not living in a deprived area or having low prior attainment.How much would it cost?We explore three scenarios for setting the rate of a student premium.Our starting point for each of these is to consider how disadvantage is currently funded in secondary schools.Specifically,we model the per student and total cost of a student premium policy under the following scenarios:o Scenario 1 matches the secondary school pupil premium rate;o Scenario 2 matches the per student rate at which disadvantage is funded in secondary schools through the national funding formula and the pupil premium;and 5 Tuckett,Robinson,and Bunting,Measuring the Disadvantage Gap in 16-19 Education.6 o Scenario 3 matches the overall percentage share of funding(%)allocated to disadvantage in secondary schools.Making funding comparisons across phases is not straightforward but our scenarios consistently demonstrate that disadvantaged students are funded at least one-third higher in secondary schools than in 16-19 education.With an attainment gap that continues to widen beyond age 16,there is no obvious rationale for this cliff-edge in the funding system.Under our preferred EPI definition of disadvantage,a student premium could range between 647 under scenario 3 and 1,495 under scenario 2(at a total cost of between 213m and 491m).Using our preferred student premium rate in the first scenario,which matches the secondary school pupil premium(of 1,035 in 2023-24),would have a total annual cost between these extremes of 340m.Wider implementation issues For a student premium to be used effectively,institutions must be able to identify disadvantaged students.This requires a data-sharing system that allows institutions to automatically identify who is eligible for the student premium and one that is widely used by institutions.Less than one-third of further education colleges used the existing system between 2021 and 2023.The success of the student premium will depend on the degree to which it is spent effectively.The 16-19 evidence base on what works and at what cost is still at a nascent stage and additional funding should help stimulate the market for interventions that can be evaluated.A staggered roll-out of the student premium could help grow the evidence base and the rate of the student premium should be kept under review during this time.There is no requirement for 16-19 institutions to report how they spend their disadvantage funding,in contrast to the pupil premium.This means that there is more limited information on whether and how disadvantaged students are benefitting from funds aimed at supporting their needs.Other accountability mechanisms in the form of Ofsted and school and college performance tables define disadvantage using(previous)pupil premium eligibility,which is at odds with who is currently funded as disadvantaged(based on low prior attainment and area-based deprivation).Recommendations To effectively support disadvantaged students during the 16-19 phase we propose:The introduction of a student premium for disadvantaged students in 16-19 education,based on eligibility criteria that combine student-level(FSM6)and area-level(IMD)measures of disadvantage;That the student premium is initially pegged to the rate of the secondary school premium to help address the cliff-edge in funding for disadvantaged students at age 16 but that this rate is kept under review;That the Department for Education develops the 16-19 evidence base on what works and at what cost supported by the Education Endowment Foundations expanded focus on post-16 education and that is used to inform the value of the student premium longer-term;7 The Department should ensure that institutions are automatically able to identify which students are eligible for the student premium and evaluate institutions use of the shared data system to ensure it is fit-for-purpose;16-19 institutions should be held to account by publishing information on how much student premium funding they receive and how they are using it to support their disadvantaged students;and The Department should consider a staggered roll-out of the student premium in order to evaluate its effectiveness.8 1.Rationale for a 16-19 student premium The Education Policy Institute(EPI)along with several other organisations has previously called for a 16-19 student premium.6 With departmental budgets set to expire in April 2025,and a spending review on the horizon,it is a timely opportunity to set out the case for a 16-19 student premium and how the policy might work in practice who might be in scope,how much it might cost and wider considerations around its implementation.Around 85 per cent of all 16 and 17 year olds are in education,taking a range of qualifications including A levels,and vocational,technical and lower-level qualifications in further education colleges,sixth form colleges and school sixth forms.7 Yet despite the requirement for young people to participate in education or training until age 18,there is no equivalent of the pupil premium once students turn 16.The cliff-edge in disadvantage funding at age 16 comes at a critical stage in young peoples lives:the qualifications achieved in the 16-19 phase have high stakes for students future progression,careers and lifelong outcomes.The aim of a student premium would be to provide additional funding to improve educational outcomes for disadvantaged students in 16-19 education and help narrow the disadvantage attainment gap.It would continue the additional funding that already exists in primary and secondary education into the 16-19 phase and would build on the lessons learned from the pupil premium.There is a clear rationale for a 16-19 premium.In 2023,disadvantaged students were the equivalent of 3.2 A level grades behind their better off peers across students best three qualifications.8 These gaps reflect the educational inequalities that disadvantaged students experience in earlier phases,but disadvantaged students also fall further behind during the 16-19 phase.9 The gap for persistently disadvantaged students those who were in poverty for at least 80 per cent of their time in school was even higher,at almost 4 A level grades.Whilst the 16-19 disadvantage gap has returned to pre-pandemic levels,the disadvantage gap in GCSE English and maths at the end of secondary school is at its widest in over a decade at 19.2 months in 2023.This means that the task of helping students who fell behind at school to catch-up during 16-19 education is even greater.The harmful effects of disadvantage continue to affect students longer-term outcomes on entry to the labour market.Disadvantaged young people earn around 10 per cent less by age 28 than young people from non-disadvantaged backgrounds,even when holding constant their educational attainment both pre-and post-16.10 The reasons for the attainment gap are complex and wide-ranging,spanning the home lives of students,the education system and wider society,and include factors like poverty,access to extra-6 These include the House of Commons Education Committee,Sutton Trust,the Social Mobility Commission,Teach First,the Fair Education Alliance,the Association of Colleges and the Association of School and College Leaders.7 Department for Education,Participation in Education,Training and Employment Age 16 to 18.8 David Robinson et al.,EPI Annual Report 2024.9 Tuckett,Robinson,and Bunting,Measuring the Disadvantage Gap in 16-19 Education.10 Elena Lisauskaite et al.,Going Further.Further Education,Disadvantage and Social Mobility.9 curricular activities,good careers advice,social networks and mental health support.The falling behind of disadvantaged students during the final stage of compulsory education indicates that existing funding is insufficient to compensate for the educational challenges faced by 16-19 disadvantaged students,and increasingly so in the wake of the pandemic and recent cost of living crisis.The attainment gap matters because poor attainment is directly linked to lower wages,lower productivity and higher unemployment in adulthood.The gap is therefore a mechanism through which poverty is transmitted from one generation to the next.Having a 16-19 phase that supports all students to achieve and progress to their full potential is important not only for educational equity but for the skills needed by the UKs workforce and long-term economic prosperity.Building on the pupil premium In assessing the case for a 16-19 student premium,a natural starting point is to consider the rationale for,and effectiveness of,the pupil premium.In 2011,the Coalition Government introduced new funding in the form of the pupil premium,with the specific purpose of improving educational outcomes for disadvantaged pupils aged 5 to 16 in state-funded schools in England.Disadvantaged pupils are defined as those who have been eligible for(benefits-based)free school meals at any time in the last six years,as well as children in care,previously looked-after children,and pupils who have parents in the armed forces.The Department for Education pays the pupil premium directly to schools as extra funding on top of core funding,according to their number of eligible pupils.In 2023-24,the(deprivation element of the)pupil premium was 1,455 per primary pupil and 1,035 per secondary pupil and over 2 million pupils were eligible.Schools are expected to use pupil premium funding to support disadvantaged pupils to achieve more highly but schools have autonomy over how to spend it.It is not a personal budget for individual pupils,and it does not have to be spent so that it solely benefits eligible pupils.Schools are held to account for their spending decisions through Ofsted inspections,published pupil premium statements,scrutiny by school governors and trustees,and published school performance tables.To help schools use their funding effectively,the Department encourages schools to use evidence of what works.To develop this evidence base and spread best practice,the Department made a major long-term investment in the independent research charity the Education Endowment Foundation(EEF),which is part of the What Works network to support evidence-based policymaking.Over a decade after its introduction,the evidence on the impact of the pupil premium and whether it has met its objectives is limited.This partly reflects its introduction across the whole of England simultaneously without a phased rollout,limiting the scope for a comparison group and robust evaluation.In its 2015 review of the pupil premium,the National Audit Office concluded:The Department has already created a strong drive to improve support for disadvantaged pupils by targeting the pupil premium at schools on a rational basis;clearly communicating the fundings objective;investing in research and sharing best practice;and empowering teachers to try new things.However,the Department,working with others,has more to do to optimise value for money.Not all disadvantaged pupils currently attract funding.Some schools do not focus funding on disadvantaged pupils appropriately or use the most cost-effective interventions,and,in any event,the evidence base is still underdeveloped.Furthermore,the core school funding that the pupil premium supplements is not yet distributed on the basis of need.Most importantly,there is a risk 10 that accountability and intervention mechanisms allow schools to waste money on ineffective activities for many years without effective challenge.As the impact of the pupil premium becomes clearer,the Department will need to review if it is investing the right amount in it,including whether spending more in this way could allow it to close the gap more quickly,generating wider savings for the taxpayer.11 Whilst a full evidence review on the effectiveness of the pupil premium is beyond the scope of this paper,there are some positive findings with potential relevance to a 16-19 student premium:The idea of the pupil premium enjoys substantial support from the education sector;12 Introducing the pupil premium has increased schools focus on improving outcomes for disadvantaged children:after the introduction of the pupil premium,94 per cent of leaders targeted support at disadvantaged students compared to 57 per cent before;13 The disadvantage attainment gap narrowed at key stage 2 and key stage 4 until around 2017;14 Whilst evaluating the specific impact of the pupil premium on the disadvantage gap is inherently difficult,there is quasi-experimental evidence that the attainment gap for long-term disadvantaged pupils has narrowed at key stage 1 and key stage 2 since 2010;15 Long-term disadvantaged pupils also now appear to be less segregated in primary schools since 2010;16 and Schools are increasingly reporting adopting evidence-based approaches when making decisions about how to spend their pupil premium funding:in 2024,69 per cent of leaders reported using the EEF toolkit to make decisions about how to spend the pupil premium,compared to 11 per cent in 2012.17 18 However,there are also concerns around pupil premium eligibility,its use and impact:Around one-in-ten pupils who are eligible for free school meals(FSM)do not register for them,resulting in schools losing out on millions in pupil premium funding;19 Pupil premium eligibility is an imperfect measure of disadvantage which fails to capture the growing numbers of pupils in low-income families who earn above the threshold of 7,400 per household;Only a minority(5 per cent)of secondary schools appear to be prioritising pupil premium pupils in their admissions;20 11 National Audit Office,Funding-for-Disadvantaged-Pupils.12 House of Commons Education Committee,A Ten-Year Plan for School and College Funding.13 National Audit Office,Funding-for-Disadvantaged-Pupils.14 David Robinson et al.,EPI Annual Report 2024.15 Gorard,Siddiqui,and See,Assessing the Impact of Pupil Premium Funding on Primary School Segregation and Attainment.16 Gorard,Siddiqui,and See.17 The Sutton Trust and National Foundation for Educational Research,School Funding and Pupil Premium 2024.18 The Sutton Trust and National Foundation for Educational Research,NFER Teacher Voice Omnibus 2012 Survey:The Use of the Pupil Premium.19 Lord,Easby,and Evans,Pupils Not Claiming Free School Meals.20 Burgess et al.,School Admissions in England:The Rules Schools Choose on Which Pupils to Admit.11 Some schools have used the money for approaches that may not have been cost-effective;21 22 The narrowing of the disadvantage attainment gap had stalled even prior to the pandemic,and has widened subsequently.23 Given the range of factors influencing attainment,it is impossible to say what would have happened to the gap in the absence of the pupil premium,though in the context of rising poverty,sustained austerity and diminished services for children and families,it is feasible the gap could have widened even further;Schools leaders are increasingly using the funding to plug gaps elsewhere in their schools budgets,rather than supporting disadvantaged pupils.24 In summary,the rationale for a student premium is to prevent disadvantaged students from falling further behind during the critical 16-19 phase of education.It would help to address the cliff-edge in funding for disadvantage of almost 1,000 that occurs at the point students turn 16(Figure 1,discussed in Section 3).With further education having seen the largest spending cuts of all phases in the decade since 2010,any student premium should not be at the expense of funding for other students in the 16-19 phase.25 It should build on the lessons of the pupil premium which has strong support within the education sector and remains one of the most important tools that schools have to address educational inequalities pre-16.26 Assessing the impact of the pupil premium on the disadvantage gap has proved difficult and highlights the need for early consideration of how to evaluate any 16-19 student premium.Nevertheless,two elements of the pupil premium which appear to have merit are:having a clear central aim;and having a per pupil funding commitment for every child who is eligible.We use these insights to propose a set of principles for a 16-19 student premium below.21 National Audit Office,Funding-for-Disadvantaged-Pupils.22 House of Commons Education Committee,A Ten-Year Plan for School and College Funding.23 David Robinson et al.,EPI Annual Report 2024.24 The Sutton Trust and National Foundation for Educational Research,School Funding and Pupil Premium 2024.25 Drayton et al.,IFS Annual Report on Education Spending in England 2023.26 Education Endowment Foundation,The EEF Guide to the Pupil Premium.Principles for a student premium A student premium should:Have the aim of improving the attainment of economically disadvantaged students and narrowing the 16-19 disadvantage gap;Be additional to existing 16-19 funding not displace it;and Be a fixed,per-student amount received by institutions.12 Figure 1:Disadvantaged funding per disadvantaged student in secondary school(left-hand bar chart)and 16-19 education(right-hand bar chart)Note:16-19 disadvantage funding includes funding for low prior attainment which is not included in secondary school disadvantage funding,making this a conservative estimate of the disadvantage funding gap across phases see page 23 for further details.Student premium as a funding mechanism A key consideration for a 16-19 student premium is the funding mechanism itself:are there grounds for a separate,targeted mechanism,as opposed to increasing funding through existing 16-19 funding streams?There are currently two categories of disadvantage funding for 16-19 year olds:firstly,16 to 19 financial support(such as the 16 to 19 Bursary Fund)which directly supports students with their day-to-day costs of participating in education;and secondly,funding for institutions to provide additional educational support.The latter is part of the 16-19 funding formula,known as disadvantage block funding.Neither of these funding streams are directly comparable to the pupil premium,which is provided in addition to the national funding formula in primary and secondary schools.The 16-19 disadvantage block in turn is made-up of two components with different objectives.Block 1 provides funding to account for economic deprivation based on where students live,with students from the 27 per cent most deprived areas according to the Index of Multiple Deprivation(IMD)being eligible.Block 2 provides funding for the additional costs of supporting students with low prior attainment,with students who didnt achieve a grade 4 in English and/or maths at 16 being eligible.3,455 2,476 980 13 Neither block 1 or 2 is ring-fenced and this disadvantage funding is not separate from other funding from the institutions perspective.There are inevitably advantages and drawbacks with utilising different funding mechanisms.Some potential advantages and drawbacks of introducing a student premium rather than using existing 16-19 funding steams are set out in Figure 2.14 Figure 2:Potential advantages and drawbacks of introducing a 16-19 student premium as a separate,targeted mechanism rather than using existing 16-19 funding streams Potential advantages Potential drawbacks Sharpening the focus on disadvantage among education stakeholders,including teachers,leaders and governors Whilst a student premium is conceptually simple,the introduction of a new funding steam adds complexity to an already complex 16-19 funding system Acting as a lever to encourage institutions to engage with evidence when considering which approaches and interventions to adopt Funding for a specific purpose gives institutions less autonomy over how to best allocate funding Stimulating the market for interventions and approaches aimed at improving outcomes for disadvantaged students and the development of the 16-19 evidence base on what works Any associated accountability necessarily involves more bureaucracy Retaining flexibility within the existing 16-19 funding formula for other measures(such as local area deprivation)to target disadvantage Providing incentives for institutions to prioritise disadvantaged students in admissions Driving innovation and impact through greater focus on,and accountability for,the educational outcomes of disadvantaged students Providing greater protection against disadvantage funding being diverted for other purposes,due to its visibility Weighing up the balance,it is our view that a student premium should be its own,targeted funding mechanism that is distinct from student support schemes and the 16-19 funding formula.Based on the principles set out above,it would comprise additional funding allocated on a fixed,per-student basis,with the specific purpose of improving the attainment of disadvantaged students.Whilst this mirrors the approach of the pupil premium,we recognise that the nature and breadth of challenges facing disadvantaged 1619-year-olds are likely different to those at younger ages.Institutions are likely best placed to determine how additional resources should be spent to best support the outcomes of their disadvantaged students.In cases where there are specific financial barriers to young people participating in the first place such as in relation to transport,accommodation,childcare or specialist equipment,these should be addressed through 16 to 19 financial support schemes such as the 16-19 Bursary Fund,Care to Learn and residential support schemes.The wider 15 issues of evidence on what works and accountability for how the premium in spent is something we return to below.16 2.Eligibility criteria In implementing a student premium,we need to consider who might be eligible,the size of the premium and by combining the two the associated policy costs.We set out below different options for eligibility criteria(including the size of the 16-19 cohort captured under each),before moving on to our analysis of costs.Free school meal eligibility in year 11 In earlier phases of education,being registered for free school meals(FSM)is used to define whether a pupil is disadvantaged.For the purposes of the pupil premium,this is based on having been registered at any point in the last six years(known as FSM6),to compensate for some of the year-on-year volatility in families finances.Although further education colleges and sixth form colleges have had an obligation to provide a free meal to disadvantaged students since 2015,take-up is low,and the data are inconsistent.One option for defining who might be eligible for the student premium is therefore to use a students previous FSM6 record(from year 11)to determine a students eligibility for a 16-19 student premium.We estimate that this would equate to 22 per cent of those in 16-19 education,or 260,000 students in the 2021/22 academic year.27 Determining eligibility in this way would be simple,well understood,potentially have education sector buy-in and provide parity with how disadvantage is conceptualised and funded pre-16.However,it would also have some drawbacks.Firstly,it would miss students in cases where they did not have a FSM record from year 11.This would include students entering 16-19 education from the independent schools system,and those recently arriving from abroad.It would also miss newly disadvantaged students whose financial circumstances had deteriorated since year 11.In the context of rising child poverty,this is problematic.It will also be up to eight years out-of-date for some students who have not been FSM eligible since year 6.Some students will no longer be economically disadvantaged in cases where their families are now better off.Finally,it suffers from all the wider shortcomings of FSM as a measure of economic disadvantage,including its failure to capture the rising numbers of low-income families experiencing in-work poverty.28 Students in long-term poverty Previous EPI research has shown that educational outcomes are even worse for persistently disadvantaged students who claim a free school meal for at least 80 per cent of their time in school.In the 16-19 phase,the persistent disadvantage gap is nearly a grade wider than the headline disadvantage gap measure,with persistently disadvantaged students 3.9 grades behind non-disadvantaged students over their best three qualifications.29 The magnitude of the attainment gap suggests,as with earlier phases of education,that those in long term poverty face significant and 27 We use the term 16-19 education throughout this report to refer to education funded by the Education and Skills Funding Agency(ESFA)through the 16-19 funding system.See Annex for further details.28 Juliet Stone,Local Indicators of Child Poverty after Housing Costs,2021/22.29 David Robinson et al.,EPI Annual Report 2024.17 additional educational challenges,even compared to those who experience economic disadvantage over a less sustained period.Around one-third(34 per cent)of those identified as being FSM6 in year 11 or 89,000 students in 2021/22 are persistent disadvantaged.This equates to around 8 per cent of those in 16-19 education a slightly lower proportion than in secondary school(10 per cent),because the most disadvantaged young people are less likely to continue into 16-19 education.Given their profoundly poor educational outcomes,persistently disadvantaged students are potentially a priority group for receipt of a student premium(for example,under a staggered roll-out),though a drawback of using this persistence measure to target additional support is that it is being distorted over time by Universal Credit(UC).How is Universal Credit affecting free school meal eligibility?To be eligible for free school meals,a young person or their parent/carer must be in receipt of a qualifying benefit.Universal Credit(UC)is a social security benefit that was introduced in April 2013 to replace many means-tested legacy benefits such as housing benefit and income support with a single payment aimed at ensuring people are better-off in work.Prior to April 2018,UC claimants with school-aged children were eligible to claim FSM.From April 2018,an income threshold was introduced so that new UC claimants were only eligible if they earned less than 7,400 per year.To ease this transition,the government put in place protections during the period of UC roll out.This meant that any pupil eligible for FSM(and subsequently eligible)would retain free school meals until at least March 2025 even if their family income increased above the threshold during that time.This this means that since 2018,there has been an increasing number of pupils who are eligible for FSM due to transitional protections rather than their financial circumstances.This will not affect our estimates of the numbers of students eligible for a free school meal in any of the six years prior to finishing secondary school as this FSM6 measure operates with a six year lag.However,it does have implications for targeting students in long-term poverty.Each year from 2019 onwards,our persistently disadvantaged group will be capturing a more transient,higher-attaining group over time(as some of these students would have otherwise become ineligible for free meals,had it not been for UC protections).However,there will also be other factors affecting the composition of the persistently disadvantaged group over time which could be pulling in the opposite direction for example,due to rising levels of child poverty.We cannot disentangle these effects within the persistent disadvantage group,though it remains the case that educational outcomes for this group are profoundly worse than for their peers and increasingly so in the wake of the pandemic.18 Disadvantage in the 16-19 funding formula An alternative is to align eligibility for a student premium with how disadvantage is currently funded through the 16-19 funding formula.As discussed above,the 16-19 disadvantage block encompasses disadvantage relating to both economic deprivation and low prior attainment,with the latter including support for students with moderate learning difficulties and disabilities.Students with higher needs who have an Education,Health and Care plan receive additional funding through the high needs block which sits outside of the 16-19 funding formula and does not form part of our analysis for any phase.Specifically,students would be eligible for a student premium under this definition if they:Lived in one of the 27 per cent most deprived areas of the country using the 2019 Index of Multiple Deprivation(IMD);or Had low prior attainment based on not achieving grade 4 in GCSE English and/or maths by the end of year 11.Given its breadth,the disadvantage block definition captures twice as many students as the FSM6 in year 11 definition and equates to 45 per cent of those in 16-19 education,or 536,000 students in 2021/22.This figure removes students who fall under both definitions to avoid double-counting.Its advantages for determining eligibility for a student premium are that,as it already forms part of the funding formula,it would be relatively simple and easy to understand,potentially have existing buy-in from the 16-19 sector and avoids adding further complexity to the 16-19 funding system.It also has advantages in terms of its reach:using an area-based measure of economic deprivation captures the wider challenges of living in poorer areas(for example linked to housing,pollution and crime)which might be missed under an individual-based measure like FSM6.Its inclusion of low prior attainment is also intended to reach students with SEND and other additional needs,though the department acknowledges this means many calls on the 16-19 disadvantage funding.30 Previous EPI research suggests that an area-based measure of disadvantage(IMD)is a poorer predictor of the variation in 16-19 attainment than FSM6(EPI,2021).Another drawback with this measure is that despite its breadth,it still misses around 70,000 students who are disadvantaged(based on being FSM6 in year 11),despite not living in a deprived area or having low prior attainment as shown in Figure 3.It is also the case that by including low prior attainment,this moves us away from the principle of focusing on economic disadvantage.By capturing over half a million students,this measure also implies a high associated policy cost of introducing a student premium(or a trade-off in the form of setting the premium rate at a low level).30 Department for Education,Special Educational Needs and Disabilities(SEND)and Alternative Provision(AP)Improvement Plan.19 Figure 3:Overlap between disadvantage in the 16-19 funding formula and eligibility for free school meals in year 11(based on FSM6)for 16-19 year old students Note:Living in a deprived area is based on living in one of the 27 per cent most deprived areas of the country using the Index of Multiple Deprivation(IMD);low prior attainment is based on not achieving grade 4 in GCSE English and/or maths by the end of key stage 4.Counts have been rounded to the nearest ten.They relate to the combination of characteristics and are mutually exclusive so can be summed together.Supplementing free school meal eligibility with area deprivation Our final definition seeks to overcome the drawbacks of the previous two measures by combining a students previous FSM6 record with information based on where a student currently lives.Specifically,students would be eligible for a student premium under this definition if they were:FSM6 in year 11;or Missing a FSM6 record in year 11 and living in a deprived area aiming to capture those students who are without a FSM record but are nevertheless disadvantaged;or Not FSM6 in year 11 but have recently moved to a deprived area since year 11 aiming to capture the newly disadvantaged group.By adding these two extra dimensions of disadvantage based on area deprivation,this definition encompasses slightly more of the cohort than FSM6 alone,28 per cent of 16-19 year olds in education,or 329,000 students in 2021/22(compared to 22 per cent under FSM6).Previous research has found that using FSM6 alongside an area-based measure of disadvantage(IMD)explains marginally more of the variation in 16-19 student attainment than FSM6 alone.31 From this point,we will refer to this as the EPI definition as short-hand.31 Tuckett,Robinson,and Bunting,Measuring the Disadvantage Gap in 16-19 Education.20 Its key advantage is that it does a better job of targeting disadvantage than historic FSM alone by aiming to capture those missing FSM records who are likely disadvantaged based on where they live and the newly disadvantaged.For this reason,it is our preferred measure of disadvantage for the purposes of determining eligibility for a student premium,whilst acknowledging it still has drawbacks.It will still miss disadvantaged students who are newly disadvantaged but have not recently moved to a deprived area;it will also miss disadvantaged students without FSM6 records in year 11 and who do not live in a deprived area for example,asylum seekers.This measure is also complex both conceptually and in terms of its interaction with the existing funding system.Summary In summary,we have shown that decisions over how to define and measure disadvantage in the 16-19 phase determine the number of students who would receive a student premium.This ranges from 22 per cent of 1619 year-old students under the FSM6 definition to twice that(45 per cent)under the existing 16-19 funding formula definition.Our EPI definition aims to combine elements of both student-level and area-level measures to better target disadvantage and for this reason,is our preferred definition for determining student premium eligibility.It captures 28 per cent of the 16-19 student cohort,similar to the proportion receiving the secondary school pupil premium cohort.Looking across definitions,there are inevitably advantages and drawbacks in relation to their complexity,interaction with the existing funding system,targeting of economic disadvantage and associated policy costs(discussed in the next section).Under all definitions,the disadvantaged cohort is disproportionately studying in further education colleges,which have over twice as many disadvantaged students as school sixth forms under each of our definitions.21 Figure 4:Numbers(left-hand axis)and percentage(right-hand axis)of 16-19 students who are disadvantaged under different student premium eligibility criteria,by institution type 22 3.Costings In this section we consider how much a student premium policy might cost to implement.We set out three scenarios for setting the rate of the premium and consider how these intersect with the three definitions of disadvantage discussed above to estimate(a range of)total costs of the policy.The aim is to illustrate broad orders of magnitude and trade-offs.Funding for disadvantage pre and post-16 Our starting point for costing a student premium is to consider how much economic disadvantage is currently funded across phases.Funding for disadvantaged pupils in secondary schools is through two main funding streams:the national funding formula(NFF)for schools which determines how core funding is allocated to mainstream schools in England;and the pupil premium which is then paid to schools as a per-pupil amount on top of the NFF.The NFF has a basic amount per pupil which is supplemented by a range of factors which includes deprivation.The deprivation component of the NFF comprises:current FSM eligibility which is broadly intended to cover the cost of providing free meals;FSM eligibility at any time in the last 6 years(FSM6);and the level of deprivation in the postcode where the pupil lives(which is measured using the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index,IDACI),with the 37.5%most deprived areas attracting some additional funding on a sliding scale.By summing across these three NFF components plus the pupil premium,we estimate in Figure 5 that the total amount of disadvantage funding per disadvantaged secondary school pupil was 3,455 in 2023-24.Deriving an equivalent figure for disadvantaged students in 16-19 education is not straightforward as this is determined by an entirely separate 16-19 funding formula.If we sum across disadvantage block funding plus 16-19 free meals,the figure is 2,476.32 On this basis there is a funding gap of 980 at the point disadvantaged students turn 16.33 Or put another way,funding for disadvantage is around 40 per cent higher in secondary schools than in 16-19 education.It compares to a pupil premium worth 1,035 in 2023-24,rising to 1,050 in 2024-25.In making this cross-phase comparison,we have not included other elements of 16-19 financial support(worth 581 in 2023-24).This aims to help students overcome specific barriers to participation so they can remain in education which means it is not analogous to secondary school funding.34 32 Disadvantage block funding comprises two blocks:one to account for students economic deprivation and one to account for low prior attainment including supporting students with learning difficulties and disabilities see page 18 for further details.This is not a like-for-like comparison with disadvantage funding at secondary school which does not include low prior attainment.33 We calculate this on a per disadvantaged student basis using our FSM6 in year 11 definition,to align with the pupil premium.34 Department for Education,16 to 19 Education.23 3,455 Figure 5:Total disadvantaged funding per disadvantaged student in secondary school(left-hand bar chart)and 16-19 education(right-hand bar chart),under the FSM6 in year 11 definition of disadvantage This allows us to formulate two illustrative scenarios for costing a student premium:Basing the student premium on the(2023-24)pupil premium rate of 1,035;and Setting the student premium at 980 to equalise the overall rate at which disadvantage is funded in secondary schools(at 3,455 per disadvantaged pupil).Whilst the two scenarios above happen to result in a premium that is fairly similar in value,this reflects our choice to use the FSM6 in year 11 definition of disadvantage for consistency with the pupil premium.If we used a different definition to determine eligibility for the student premium which captured more 16-19 year olds(such as under the EPI definition or the 16-19 funding formula definition),16-19 disadvantage funding would effectively be allocated across more students and cause the per-student funding gap with secondary schools to increase.This is explored in more detail below.It is also worth noting that the second scenario with a funding gap of 980 is conservative.This is because 16-19 disadvantage funding additionally supports students with low prior attainment which is not included for secondary schools in Figures 1 and 5.To derive a more like-for-like comparison,we would need to strip-out the 16-19 block 2 element that targets low prior attainment,including moderate learning difficulties and disabilities.Whilst this is not possible using the published 16-19 allocations data,it would effectively cause the funding gap in Figures 1 and 5 to grow.35 35 Department for Education,16 to 19 Funding.9800 2,4760 3,4550 24 Our third scenario for costing a student premium takes a different approach and considers the proportion of funding that is allocated to disadvantage at each phase,rather than the per-student amount.Overall,13 per cent of secondary school funding is allocated to disadvantage,across the deprivation component of the NFF plus the pupil premium.36 This compares to a figure of 10 per cent in 16-19 education across disadvantage block funding plus 16-19 free meals.37 Equalising the overall proportion of funding allocated to disadvantage across phases would therefore increase the share at 16-19 by around 3 percentage points.Whilst a small difference in absolute terms,it means that disadvantage funding is around one-third higher in secondary schools than in 16-19 education,worth an additional 817 per disadvantaged student under the FSM6 definition.38 Figure 6:Total proportion of funding allocated to disadvantage at secondary school and in 16-19 education This provides further evidence of a sizeable disadvantage funding gap at age 16 and the basis for our third scenario for costing a student premium:36 In calculating total secondary school funding(i.e.the denominator),we sum across:the total schools block(post-MFG);PE&sport premium;teachers pay additional grant;and mainstream schools additional grant.We do not include high needs funding.We exclude coronavirus recovery premium funding and the National Tutoring Programme as these are time-limited and not due to continue beyond the 2023/24 academic year.37 In calculating total 16-19 education funding(i.e.the denominator),we sum across:total programme funding;16-19 free meals;care standards funding;capacity and delivery fund;alternative completions funding;teachers pension scheme grant;and offset high value courses.38 In contrast to the second scenario above,using a wider definition of disadvantage for determining student premium eligibility which captures more 16-19 year olds than under FSM6 would in this third scenario equate to a lower student premium rate,as the funding quantum(worth 3 percent of the overall 16-19 funding pot)would be divided between more students.equivalent to a student premium of 817 under FSM6 definition 25 Setting the student premium to equalise the overall proportion of funding allocated to disadvantage across phases to match the secondary school percentage of 13%.These scenarios provide approaches for thinking about how to set the rate of a student premium but do not provide evidence-based,bottom-up costings of what resources might be needed to support the needs of disadvantaged students.Whilst this is beyond the scope of this report,our scenarios all demonstrate that disadvantage is funded at a much higher rate in secondary schools than in 16-19 education.This relative underfunding is also consistent with analysis showing that resources are much higher in the most deprived decile(relative to this least deprived decile)in secondary schools than in 16-19 education,regardless of whether deciles are based on individual or area-based measures of deprivation.39 Given the disadvantage attainment gap continues to widen beyond age 16,there is no obvious rationale for why 16-19 funding for disadvantage is so much lower than at secondary school.40 In the next section we take each of the three scenarios for setting the student premium and combine them with the definitions of disadvantage in the previous section to derive a range of overall policy costs for implementing a student premium.Scenario 1:matching the secondary school pupil premium rate Here we set the student premium rate to match the pupil premium in secondary schools of 1,035 in 2023-24.This is shown as yellow dots in Figure 7 and is the same under all our definitions of 16-19 disadvantage.By combining this rate of 1,035 with our estimate of existing 16-19 disadvantage funding(blocks 1&2 funding,plus free meals),we can derive the total amount of disadvantage funding per disadvantaged student(shown as pink dots).The total cost of the student premium policy is simply the per student rate multiplied the number of eligible students under the different definitions of disadvantage.This is shown in the light green bars,as a subset of total disadvantage funding in 16-19 education(the dark green bars).39 Drayton et al.,IFS Annual Report on Education Spending in England 2023.40 Tuckett,Robinson,and Bunting,Measuring the Disadvantage Gap in 16-19 Education.26 Figure 7:Scenario 1 models the student premium rate(right-hand axis)and total cost of the student premium policy(left-hand axis)under different eligibility criteria,based on matching the secondary school pupil premium By design in Figure 7,the student premium rate matches the secondary school pupil premium rate of 1,035.The total cost of the student premium is proportional to the number of eligible students under each definition of disadvantage.The cost of the policy is 340m under our preferred EPI definition.This compares to 269m under the FSM6 in year 11 definition and 555m under the wider 16-19 funding formula definition.These are all lower than the 807m cost of the pupil premium simply because there are more year groups in the secondary phase than in 16-19 education.The student premium funding would be in addition to existing 16-19 disadvantage funding of around 644m(which is a fixed amount under each definition).We can then combine these into a figure for total disadvantage funding per disadvantaged student.This equates to 2,995 under our EPI definition still lower than disadvantage funding per disadvantaged secondary-aged pupil of 3,455;it is highest under the FSM6 in year 11 definition(at 3,511)and lowest under the 16-19 funding formula definition(at 2,238).The key advantages of this approach to costing a student premium are its simplicity and its parity with the secondary school phase.However,this is parity in a notional sense,as there is no reason to think that the rate of the secondary school pupil premium is the right one for 16-19 students.Knowing the optimal level to set the rate of a student premium requires the development of the 16-27 19 evidence base on effective interventions and approaches for improving outcomes for disadvantaged students and their relative cost,discussed in more detail below.Scenario 2:matching the per student rate at which disadvantage is funded in secondary schools Here we set the student premium rate so that total 16-19 disadvantage funding(including block funding)per student matches that in secondary schools.This is shown in Figure 8 by the pink dots which represent overall per student disadvantaged funding all being set equal to the secondary school rate of 3,455 under each of our disadvantage definitions.This means that the student premium rate itself varies between definitions.It is 1,495 under our EPI definition,which sits between a low of 980 under the FSM6 in year 11 definition(as we saw in Figure 5)and a high of 2,252 under the 16-19 funding formula definition.41 41 The reason the premium increases in value in this way is because for disadvantage definitions capturing fewer 16-19 students,existing 16-19 disadvantage funding is being allocated between fewer students and by starting with higher funding per disadvantaged student,there is less headroom when aiming to equalise overall disadvantage funding at the secondary school rate(of 3,455).28 Figure 8:Scenario 2 models the student premium rate(right-hand axis)and total cost of the student premium policy(left-hand axis)under different eligibility criteria,based on matching the rate of per pupil disadvantage funding in secondary schools The total cost of the student premium is 491m under the EPI definition.This compares to 255m under the FSM6 definition and 1.2 billion under the 16-19 funding formula definition.The very high cost under the funding formula definition for this second funding scenario reflects that this is combining the highest student premium rate(2,252)with the highest number of eligible students.The key advantage of this approach to costing the student premium is its parity with the level of disadvantage funding(per disadvantaged student)in secondary schools.However,as with matching the pupil premium in the first scenario,there is no reason to think that this is the right level of funding for disadvantaged students in 16-19 education which requires the development of the 16-19 evidence base on what works and at what cost.It also becomes an expensive policy for wider definitions of disadvantage that capture more students.Scenario 3:matching the overall proportion of funding allocated to disadvantage in secondary schools The final scenario that we model involves setting the rate of the student premium to equalise the proportion of total 16-19 funding allocated to disadvantage(currently 10%)to match that of secondary schools(13%).This is effectively the least generous of our three scenarios,reflected in both lower student premium rates and lower total amounts of disadvantage funding per disadvantaged student.This is because as discussed above,it equates to a smaller funding uplift of 29 around one-third compared to at least 40 per cent in the other scenarios(under the FSM6 definition).Figure 9:Scenario 3 models the student premium rate(right-hand axis)and total cost of the student premium policy(left-hand axis)under different eligibility criteria,based on matching the overall proportion of funding allocated to disadvantage in secondary schools In Figure 9,the student premium rate is 647 under our EPI definition,which sits between a low of 397 under the 16-19 funding formula definition and a high of 817 under the FSM6 in year 11 definition(as we saw in Figure 6).It is a smaller premium under wider definitions of disadvantage because the fixed quantum of disadvantage funding is being allocated between more students.The student premium is well below the secondary pupil premium rate(of 1,035)under all definitions,and so too is total disadvantage funding per disadvantaged student.The cost of the student premium policy is fixed at 213m under all definitions,taking total 16-19 disadvantage funding to 857m under all definitions.This scenario has been provided as a further lens through which to demonstrate the relative funding gap at age 16 but it has some key drawbacks.Compared to the other two scenarios,it is more complex.It also bakes-in existing inequalities in funding by phase.This results in low disadvantage funding rates both in absolute terms and relative to the secondary phase particularly for wider definitions of disadvantage.For these reasons,it is our least preferred option of the three.30 Other considerations The cost of delivering education is higher in London and the South East than the rest of England.The 16-19 funding formula reflects this through an area cost uplift which scales-up programme funding(including disadvantage block funding)received by institutions in more expensive areas.We do not propose that the student premium should vary geographically,given that other elements of the funding system already address area-cost differences.Our analysis is based on student headcounts as opposed to full-time equivalents.The vast majority of 16-19 year olds are in full-time provision and we do not propose that the student premium should be adjusted for those in part-time provision.This helps mitigate risks of baking-in disadvantage in cases where disadvantaged students are having to study part-time to combine their studies with working.To align with students funded by the Education and Skills Funding Agency(ESFA)in the published 16-19 allocations data,our costings do not include students aged 16 to 19 undertaking an apprenticeship.Official data indicates that 4.6 per cent of the 16-19 year old population were on an apprenticeship in 2022(only a subset of these would meet the eligibility criteria for a student premium).42 Although not included in our figures,the relatively small numbers involved mean that they would not have a substantial impact on costs and our view is that young apprentices who meet the EPI definition should be eligible for the student premium.The ESFA 16-19 funding does include students up to the age of 25 when they have an education,health and care plan(EHCP).Given our focus on 16-19 year olds,we have not included these older students in our analysis.Supplementary analysis using the Individualised Learner Record(ILR)indicates that there were around 32,000 students aged 19 to 25 with EHCPs in 2021/22(of whom around 14,000 were FSM6 eligible in year 11).This could be an additional 4 per cent in the number of students eligible for the student premium and we propose that this group should also be in-scope.Summary The student premium rate and its associated total policy cost is determined by the intersection of the eligibility criteria and choice of funding scenario.Our starting point for the scenarios is to consider how much disadvantage is currently funded at secondary school,whilst recognising that the needs of students will change as they progress in their education and may well become more costly beyond the age of 16.Despite this,we find that disadvantage is funded at least one-third higher in secondary schools than in 16-19 education.Setting the student premium at least as high as the secondary school pupil premium(1,035)would help address this cliff-edge in the funding system at age 16.Combining this with our preferred definition of disadvantage which captures 28 per cent of the student cohort would mean a total policy cost of 340m(in 2023-24 prices).A full summary table can be found in Figure 10.42 Department for Education,Participation in Education,Training and Employment Age 16 to 18.31 Figure 10:Summary of approaches to defining disadvantage for the purposes of a student premium and their associated total policy costs under different funding scenarios(2023-24 prices)Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Approach:matching the secondary school pupil premium rate of 1,035 Approach:matching the per student rate at which disadvantage is funded in secondary schools Approach:matching the overall proportion of funding(%)allocated to disadvantage in secondary schools Student premium():FSM6 definition=1,035 EPI definition=1,035 16-19 funding formula definition=1,035 Student premium():FSM6 definition=980 EPI definition=1,495 16-19 funding formula definition=2,252 Student premium():FSM6 definition=817 EPI definition=647 16-19 funding formula definition=397 Total policy cost():FSM6 definition=269m EPI definition=340m 16-19 funding formula definition=555m Total policy cost():FSM6 definition=255m EPI definition=491m 16-19 funding formula definition=1,207m Total policy cost():FSM6 definition=213m EPI definition=213m 16-19 funding formula definition=213m Advantages and drawbacks:Simplicity Equity with secondary school pupil premium(though there is still a funding gap based on overall disadvantaged funding per disadvantaged student)Implicit assumption that pupil premium is set at right rate Advantages and drawbacks:Equity with pre-16(when looking at overall disadvantage funding per disadvantaged student)Implicit assumption that funding per disadvantaged pupil is set at right rate Costly for some definitions of disadvantage Advantages and drawbacks:More complex(not directly linked to per student funding)Implicit assumption that the proportion of funding on disadvantage pre-16 is right Bakes in funding inequalities across phases 32 4.Wider implementation issues Data sharing When a disadvantaged pupil attends a primary or secondary school,the school generally knows who the pupil is and how much additional funding it will receive to support that child in the form of the pupil premium.Being able to identify disadvantaged pupils and diagnose their individual needs is the starting point for schools being able to plan,implement,monitor and sustain an effective pupil premium strategy.43 However,at the point the student turns 16,there is no national,or even local,oversight of the transition to key stage 5 and institutions do not automatically know which of their 16-19 year olds are,or were previously,disadvantaged.This may be a particular challenge in further education colleges,given their size and disproportionately disadvantaged intakes.They also cater for greater numbers of lower-attaining students and students with additional educational needs,making colleges a vital place for enabling social mobility.44 The existing system for schools and colleges to check the status of their students is known as Get Information about Pupils(GIAP)which includes their pupil premium status.The GIAP tool is designed to allow institutions to access data about students end of key stage results(key stage 4,key stage 2 and key stage 1)and their contextual characteristics,including their disadvantaged status.However,this system does not appear to be widely used based on data we obtained on the number of logins to the GIAP tool through a DfE Freedom of Information(FOI)request.We looked at the proportion of institutions that logged in to the GIAP tool in a calendar year since its inception in 2021.In the most recent year(2023),78 per cent of institutions had accessed the GIAP tool at least once(rising from 54 per cent in 2021).When we split this out by institution type in Figure 11,what is stark is the extremely low proportion of further education colleges that have accessed the GIAP tool over the past few years.Less than a third of further education colleges used the GIAP tool on average between 2021 and 2023.In 2023,the proportion had risen to 36 per cent,compared to 83 per cent of other 16-19 providers that had accessed the GIAP tool.Around three-quarters of free schools(16-19)and over two-thirds of 16-19 academy converters had used the GIAP tool in 2023.While this is much higher than for further education colleges,that still leaves a sizeable group of institutions that do not access the GIAP tool.43 Education Endowment Foundation,The EEF Guide to the Pupil Premium.44 Bibby et al.,Post-16 Pathways to Employment for Lower Attaining Pupils:Are They Working?;Lupton,Thomson,and Unwin,Moving on from Initial GCSE“Failure”:Post-16 Transitions for“Lower Attainers”and Why the English Education System Must Do Better.33 Figure 11:Proportion of institutions accessing GIAP by high-level institution type Given the emphasis on identifying and supporting disadvantaged students in Ofsted performance criteria,the access rates for GIAP are concerning,particularly for further education colleges.It is perhaps unsurprising that rates are low if institutions do not think they need the additional data either because they undertake their own early assessments of students in any case or because of a lack of incentive to do so,given weak links with existing funding and accountability systems(discussed below).In summary,to ensure that any student premium is used effectively,institutions must be able to identify eligible students.This requires a data-sharing system that allows institutions to automatically identify who is disadvantaged(based on the student premium eligibility criteria)and is widely used across all institution types.It might better support early identification of learning needs,ideally from the admissions point,so that institutions can plan ahead.Following the introduction of a student premium,the Department should evaluate the systems use to ensure disadvantaged students are not falling between institutional gaps.Building the evidence base The government has made significant long-term investment in the Education Endowment Foundation(EEF)to embed evidence in the English education system.This includes supporting schools with resources when making decisions with their pupil premium funding.Schools have autonomy over how to spend the pupil premium and are expected to combine external research evidence with their professional expertise and knowledge of their school context to drive maximum impact.The remit of the EEF includes disadvantaged students up to age 19 but its post-16 evidence base is still at a nascent stage.The current funding round has a focus on supporting what works in relation to GCSE maths and English re-sits.A recent EEF review found that theres a growing appetite among post-16 settings to use evidence to support teaching and learning,but a lack of support and resources for doing so(EEF,2023).It recommended more research,the development of 34 interventions and trials to generate a more robust evidence base,and support and resources to improve the generation and use of evidence among practitioners and institutions.The government has since announced that the EEF would receive 40m of funding to grow the evidence base and support effective practice in post-16 education.45 Whilst some evidence from EEF studies with younger pupils may provide insights on how to support the attainment of disadvantaged 16-19 year olds,careful thought is needed around how relevant,robust and applicable it is in the context of 16-19 education.This evidence gap when making decisions around how to spend(new or existing)16-19 disadvantage funding will hamper efforts to close the attainment gap.However,the paucity of evidence at least partly reflects the current lack of a 16-19 student premium and developing the evidence base may in fact require funding to stimulate the market for interventions that can be evaluated,as seen with the development of the pre-16 evidence base in the years following the introduction of the pupil premium in 2011.To maximise the impact of additional disadvantage funding through a student premium,the 16-19 evidence base would therefore need to be developed alongside it.The Department should prioritise the development of the 16-19 evidence base and consider a staggered roll-out of the student premium to support its evaluation,including understanding how institutions spend the funding and policy implementation issues during its first year of rollout.This could take the form of a limited set of interventions and approaches that existing evidence suggests have most promise.Disadvantaged students in long-term poverty and/or with low prior attainment might also be considered priority groups for initial trials.Accountability for disadvantaged students Institutions are currently held to account for the performance of their disadvantaged students through Ofsted inspections and school and college performance tables,whose headline measures are produced separately for disadvantaged students.The quality of education 16-19 institutions provide for disadvantaged students and the attainment of these students are key components of Ofsted ratings.These factors are explicitly stated throughout the Ofsted inspection criteria.46 Under the topic of education programmes for young people in further education colleges,where disadvantaged students are significantly over-represented in the student population:Inspectors will consider how well leaders and teachers promote high expectations for achievement and progress through the systems they use to monitor and develop the quality of provision for learners,including the most disadvantaged,those with SEND and those with high needs.Under the Good grade descriptor,college leaders must:adopt or construct a curriculum that is ambitious,appropriately relevant to local,regional and national employment and training priorities and designed to give learners,particularly the most disadvantaged,the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in life.45 Education Endowment Foundation,Government Confirms Funding for EEF to Support Evidence-Informed.46 Ofsted,Further Education and Skills Inspection Handbook.35 Under these criteria,91 per cent of general further education colleges and 100 per cent of sixth-form colleges received a ranking of Good or Outstanding in 2023.47 However,the definition of disadvantage for the purposes of both Ofsted and performance tables is based on(previous)pupil premium eligibility.This means there is a mismatch between which students are currently funded as disadvantaged(based on low prior attainment and area-based deprivation)and those students who are considered disadvantaged for accountability purposes(based on pupil premium).There is also no requirement for 16-19 institutions to report how they spend their disadvantage funding,in contrast to schools pupil premium reporting requirements which include publishing a statement each year on how they are using their funding which is scrutinised by governors and trustees.This means that there is more limited information on whether and how disadvantaged students are benefitting from funds aimed at supporting their needs.Alongside the under-developed evidence base,this may be limiting the effectiveness of existing disadvantage funding.The issues around data-sharing,a paucity of evidence and weak accountability raise potential concerns around how effectively institutions are currently targeting and supporting disadvantaged students and maximising the impact of disadvantage funding to improve their outcomes.Alongside the introduction of a student premium,16-19 institutions should be held to account for its use.They should publish on their websites information on how much student premium funding they receive and how they are using it to support their disadvantaged students.47 Ofsted,Main Findings.36 5.Conclusion Education inequality in England is entrenched and the stubborn link between family income and educational outcomes does not stop at age 16.Economically disadvantaged students in 16-19 education are over 3 grades behind their peers.48 Whilst this partly reflects the educational inequalities that disadvantaged students experience in earlier phases,they also fall further behind during the 16-19 phase.49 The sizeable attainment gap indicates that existing resources in 16-19 education are insufficient to overcome the additional challenges of supporting disadvantaged students,particularly against a backdrop of the further education sector having endured the biggest spending cuts of any education phase in recent years.50 To prevent disadvantaged students from falling further behind,there is a strong case for additional government funding for economic disadvantage in 16-19 education.We propose that this should be in the form of a 16-19 student premium,building on the principles and lessons from the pupil premium which has become one of schools most important tools in tackling educational inequalities pre-16.It would have one central aim:to improve the educational attainment of economically disadvantaged students,backed by a per student funding commitment for every eligible learner.Limitations with the 16-19 data and evidence base mean determining who should be eligible for a student premium and the right amount of funding is not straightforward.Our preferred definition is one that seeks to combine student-level(FSM6)and area-level(IMD)measures to better target resources towards economic disadvantage than either FSM6 in isolation or the existing 16-19 funding formula.And although more complex than other definitions,it does not require any additional data to what is already collected centrally.In setting the rate of a student premium,our starting point is to consider how disadvantage is currently funded at secondary school.We find that disadvantage is funded at least one-third higher in secondary schools than in 16-19 education.There is no obvious rationale for this and appears to be at odds with a national funding formula which weights most other deprivation factors more heavily for older pupils(at secondary school)than younger ones(at primary).Setting the student premium at least as high as the secondary school pupil premium(1,035 in 2023-24)would help address this cliff-edge in the funding system at age 16.Combining this with our preferred definition of disadvantage which captures 28 per cent of the student cohort would mean a total policy cost of 340m(in 2023-24 prices).In conclusion,we propose:The introduction of a student premium for disadvantaged students in 16-19 education,based on eligibility criteria that combine student-level(FSM6)and area-level(IMD)measures of disadvantage;48 David Robinson et al.,EPI Annual Report 2024.49 Tuckett,Robinson,and Bunting,Measuring the Disadvantage Gap in 16-19 Education.50 Drayton et al.,IFS Annual Report on Education Spending in England 2023.37 That the student premium is initially pegged to the rate of the secondary school premium to help address the cliff-edge in funding for disadvantaged students at age 16 but that this rate is kept under review;That the Department for Education develops the 16-19 evidence base on what works and at what cost supported by the Education Endowment Foundations expanded focus on post-16 education and that is used to inform the value of the student premium longer-term;The Department should ensure that institutions are automatically able to identify which students are eligible for the student premium and evaluate institutions use of the shared data system to ensure it is fit-for-purpose;16-19 institutions should be held to account by publishing information on how much student premium funding they receive and how they are using it to support their disadvantaged students;and The Department should consider a staggered roll-out of the student premium in order to evaluate its effectiveness.38 Appendix:Data and methodology Student counts We base our analysis on the Key Stage 5 file of the National Pupil Database(NPD).We select students who were aged 16,17 or 18 at the start of the academic year 2021/22,excluding students in independent institutions or institutions of unknown type.To derive students home postcode,we match to their entry in the Spring School Census(in January 2022)or the Individualised Learner Record(at the end of the 2021/22 academic year).Students who have dropped out part way through their course will not be captured in our analysis.This allows us to identify students living in the 27 per cent most deprived areas of the country based on the Index of Multiple Deprivation(IMD),to align with the definition of economic disadvantage used in the 16-19 funding formula.Given our interest in targeting students who have recently moved into a disadvantaged area,we also identify the subgroup who currently live in one of the most 27 per cent deprived areas of the country but did not do so(or were missing data)at the end of key stage 4,based on their Spring School Census record from year 11.We match students to their School Census record in year 11 to identify those who were eligible for free school meals at any point in the previous six years(FSM6)prior to the end of key stage 4.We do this for four cohorts who completed key stage 4 in the academic years 2017/18 to 2020/21.We also track students back through earlier years School Census records to identify persistently disadvantaged students who are the subset of disadvantaged student that are eligible for free school meals for at least 80 per cent of their time in school.To identify students with low prior attainment,we use their GCSE results in English and maths.We define having low prior attainment in the same way as the 16-19 block 2 disadvantage funding,based on not achieving grade 4 in GCSE English and/or maths by the end of year 11.To identify students institution type during key stage 5 we match to data from Get Information about Schools.In our aggregation of institution types,we include Special schools as other types.Given our interest in 19-24 year old students with Education,Health and Care plans(EHCPs),we use the ILR to identify those aged 19,20,21,22,23 or 24 at the start of the academic year 2021/22.We then match these students to their historic pupil records in the Spring School Census to identify those who are disadvantaged and have an EHCP.We do this for six cohorts who completed key stage 4 in the years 2012/13 to 2017/18.Student Premium policy costings The starting point for our funding analysis is to compare the rate at which disadvantage is funded in state funded secondary schools relative to 16-19 education.In calculating total disadvantage funding at the secondary school phase,we use the Department for Educations secondary school allocations for 2023-24.We sum across funding allocated to mainstream secondary schools in relation to the pupil premium,plus the three deprivation factors in 39 the schools national funding formula.These relate to funding for secondary pupils currently eligible for free school meals(FSM);secondary pupils who have been recorded as eligible for FSM at any time in the last six years(FSM6);and area-level deprivation based on the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index(IDACI)which measures the proportion of all children aged 0 to 15 living in income deprived families.For the 16-19 phase,we use the Department for Educations 16-19 allocations for 2021/22 to align with our student counts for the academic year 2021/22.We then convert 16-19 funding figures to 2023-24(financial year)prices to align with the school funding figures,using HMTs March 2024 GDP deflators.In calculating disadvantage funding in 16-19 education,we sum across funding allocated through the 16-19 funding formula for disadvantage(blocks 1 and 2),plus the free meals element of 16-19 financial support.For consistency with pre-16 disadvantage funding,we do not include other elements of 16-19 financial support.To derive the amount of disadvantage funding per disadvantaged student in each phase,we divide these funding totals by our estimates of the numbers of disadvantaged students at each phase.We refer to these estimates as total disadvantage funding per disadvantaged student though this is notional in the sense that this funding may not be spent solely on disadvantaged students.This is notably the case for area-level funding which is allocated to students living in deprived areas who may or may not be deprived themselves.We also calculate the percentage share of total(revenue)funding at each phase that is allocated to disadvantage.For schools,the(denominator of)this calculation sums across:the total schools block(post-minimum funding guarantee);the PE and sport premium;teachers pay additional grant;and mainstream schools additional grant.It does not include high needs funding.We also exclude coronavirus recovery premium funding and National Tutoring Programme funding as these are time-limited and are not due to continue beyond the 2023/24 academic year.In calculating total 16-19 funding,we sum across:total programme funding;16-19 free meals;care standards funding;capacity and delivery fund;alternative completions funding;teachers pension scheme grant;and offset high value courses.It does not include high needs funding,or the 16 to 19 tuition fund.40 References Bibby,David,Emma Gorman,David Thomson,and Peter Urwin.Post-16 Pathways to Employment for Lower Attaining Pupils:Are They Working?Nuffield Foundation,2024.https:/ffteducationdatalab.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/FR-000000366-Main-Public-Output-March-2024_1.pdf.Burgess,Simon,Estelle Cantillon,Mariagrazia Cavallo,Ellen Greaves,and Min Zhang.School Admissions in England:The Rules Schools Choose on Which Pupils to Admit,1 March 2023.David Robinson,Emily Hunt,Sam Tuckett,and Niccolo Babbini.EPI Annual Report 2024.Education Policy Institute.Accessed 16 July 2024.https:/epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/annual-report-2024/.Department for Education.16 to 19 Education:Financial Support for Students.GOV.UK,27 April 2023.https:/www.gov.uk/guidance/16-to-19-education-financial-support-for-students.16 to 19 Funding:Allocations.GOV.UK,1 May 2024.https:/www.gov.uk/guidance/16-to-19-education-funding-allocations.Participation in Education,Training and Employment Age 16 to 18,19 October 2023.https:/explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/participation-in-education-and-training-and-employment.Special Educational Needs and Disabilities(SEND)and Alternative Provision(AP)Improvement Plan,1 March 2023.https:/assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63ff39d28fa8f527fb67cb06/SEND_and_alternative_provision_improvement_plan.pdf.Drayton,Elaine,Christine Farquharson,Kate Ogden,Luke Sibieta,Imran Tahir,and Ben Waltmann.IFS Annual Report on Education Spending in England 2023.Institute for Fiscal Studies,11 December 2023.https:/ifs.org.uk/education-spending/further-education-and-sixth-forms.Education Endowment Foundation.Government Confirms Funding for EEF to Support Evidence-Informed.EEF,4 October 2023.https:/educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/news/government-confirms-funding-for-eef-to-support-evidence-informed-practice-in-the-post-16-space.The EEF Guide to the Pupil Premium,1 September 2023.https:/ Lisauskaite,Steven McIntosh,Stefan Speckesser,and Hctor Espinoza.Going Further.Further Education,Disadvantage and Social Mobility,1 October 2021.Gorard,Stephen,Nadia Siddiqui,and Beng Huat See.Assessing the Impact of Pupil Premium Funding on Primary School Segregation and Attainment.Research Papers in Education 37,no.6(2 November 2022):9921019.https:/doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2021.1907775.House of Commons Education Committee.A Ten-Year Plan for School and College Funding,16 July 2019.Juliet Stone.Local Indicators of Child Poverty after Housing Costs,2021/22.UK Data Service,2022.https:/doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-6614-16.Lord,Anthony,Jenny Easby,and Helen Evans.Pupils Not Claiming Free School Meals,1 December 2013.Lupton,Ruth,Stephanie Thomson,and Lorna Unwin.Moving on from Initial GCSE“Failure”:Post-16 Transitions for“Lower Attainers”and Why the English Education System Must Do Better.Nuffield Foundation,2021.National Audit Office.Funding-for-Disadvantaged-Pupils,30 June 2015.Ofsted.Further Education and Skills Inspection Handbook.GOV.UK,5 April 2024.https:/www.gov.uk/government/publications/further-education-and-skills-inspection-handbook-eif/further-education-and-skills-handbook-for-september-2023.41 .Main Findings:Further Education and Skills Inspections and Outcomes as at 31 August 2023.GOV.UK,17 November 2023.https:/www.gov.uk/government/statistics/further-education-and-skills-inspections-and-outcomes-as-at-31-august-2023/main-findings-further-education-and-skills-inspections-and-outcomes-as-at-31-august-2023.The Sutton Trust and National Foundation for Educational Research.NFER Teacher Voice Omnibus 2012 Survey:The Use of the Pupil Premium,1 January 2012.School Funding and Pupil Premium 2024,19 April 2024.Tuckett,Sam,David Robinson,and Felix Bunting.Measuring the Disadvantage Gap in 16-19 Education.Education Policy Institute,March 2021.https:/epi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Measuring-the-16-19-disadvantage-attainment-gap_EPI-2021.pdf.
2024-08-13
42页
5星级
Table of ContentsShifting Tourism Patterns3Major Metropolitan Magnets For Domestic Tourism3New York .
2024-08-13
11页
5星级
GUIDE TO CUSTOMER SEGMENTATIONBuild audience segments to reach the right customers 2024 Hanover Rese.
2024-08-12
12页
5星级
STRATEGIC BUDGETING IN INTERNATIONALIZATIONIntroduction .3Funding Models in Higher Education and Int.
2024-08-12
15页
5星级
June 2024 Data Strategy 2024-27 Department of Education Data Strategy 2024-27 Table of Contents For.
2024-08-08
30页
5星级
Objective This policy insight examines the types of government units directly responsible for the g.
2024-08-08
8页
5星级
YouGov Global Sport Buzz RankingsLiving Consumer Intelligence|AbouAbout tandand w whahat wt we doe d.
2024-08-08
22页
5星级
Study:Travel Patterns in USand UK Reveal SurprisingShifts2024-05-29In an era marked by changing trav.
2024-08-08
10页
5星级
TRENDS IN K12 EDUCATION20242 2024 Hanover ResearchK12WP05233/INTRODUCTION 4/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5/TREN.
2024-08-08
27页
5星级
2024 NATIONAL ADMITTED STUDENT SURVEYA Report on the State of U.S.College Admissions2 2024Hanover Re.
2024-08-07
20页
5星级
K-12 MARKETING STRATEGIES TO INCREASE DISTRICT ENROLLMENT 2024 Hanover ResearchK12WP04242INTRODUCTIO.
2024-08-07
9页
5星级
Executive Summary 02Chapter 1Overview of Global Tourism Market 04Chapter 2 Overview of Chinese Mainl.
2024-08-07
48页
5星级
epo.orgepo.orgInnovation in water-related technologiesJuly 2024INNOVATION IN WATER-RELATED TECHNOLOG.
2024-08-06
56页
5星级
2024,Terra Dotta,LLC1TOPLINE REPORTReporting on data from the Study Abroad Survey conducted on 258 .
2024-08-06
32页
5星级
Data Protection Report 2023Annex to the Annual Review epo.orgepo.org|2 Executive summary Compliance .
2024-08-06
23页
5星级
罗兰贝格：预见2026：中国行业趋势报告（90页）.pdf
智源研究院：2026十大AI技术趋势报告（34页）.pdf
中国互联网协会：智能体应用发展报告（2025）（124页）.pdf
三个皮匠报告：2025银发经济生态：中国与全球实践白皮书（150页）.pdf
三个皮匠报告：2025中国商业航天市场洞察报告-中国商业航天新格局全景洞察（25页）.pdf
国声智库：全球AI创造力发展报告2025（77页）.pdf
中国电子技术标准化研究院：2025知识图谱与大模型融合实践案例集（354页）.pdf
三个皮匠报告：2025中国情绪消费市场洞察报告（24页）.pdf
中国银行：2026中国高净值人群财富管理白皮书（66页）.pdf
亿欧智库：2025全球人工智能技术应用洞察报告（43页）.pdf
0731-84720580
商务合作：really158d
友链申请 (QQ)：1737380874
最新报告
中英对照
全文搜索
报告精选
PDF上传翻译
多格式文档互转
入驻&报告售卖
会员权益
机构报告
券商研报
财报库
专题合集
英文报告
数据图表
会议报告
其他资源
研报
新质生产力
DeepSeek
低空经济
大模型
AI Agent
AI Infra
具身智能
自动驾驶
宠物
银发经济
人形机器人
企业出海
算力
微短剧
薪酬
白皮书
创新药
行业分析
个股研究
年报财报
IPO招股书
会议纪要
宏观策略
政策法规
其他
人工智能
信息科技
互联网
消费经济
汽车交通
电商零售
传媒娱乐
医疗健康
投资金融
能源环境
地产建筑
传统产业
英文报告
其它
行业聚焦
芯片产业
热点概念
全球咨询智库
人工智能
500强
新质生产力
会议峰会
新能源汽车
企业年报
互联网
公司研究
行业综观
消费教育
科技通信
医药健康
人力资源
投资金融
汽车产业
物流地产
电子商务
传统产业
传媒营销
其它
十五五规划系列报告合集（共48套打包）
2026低空经济/低空产业报告合集（共47套打包）
AI、科技与通信
广告、传媒与营销
消费、零售与支付
HR、文化与旅游
金融、保险与投资
能源、环境与工业
医疗制药与大健康
物流、地产与建筑
其他行业
AI ▪ 科技 ▪ 通信
数字化
金融财经
智能制造
电商传媒
地产建筑
医疗医学
能源化工
其他行业
收藏
下载
2026-02-02
AI查数
行业数据
政策法规
商业模式
产业链
竞争格局
市场规模
产业概述
其它
2026年
AI读财报
年报
一季报
半年报
三季报
IPO招股书
社会责任报告
A股
IPO申报
港股
美股&全球
新三板
微信扫码登录
手机快捷登录
账号登录
