Complete guide to pupil premium funding rates 2025-26 and 2026-27, EEF tiered spending strategies, Ofsted expectations, and evidence-based approaches for closing the disadvantage gap.
Research by Smith (2023) shows pupil premium helps disadvantaged pupils. Schools use this funding for specific support, like extra tuition. Jones (2024) found careful tracking ensures programmes boost learner progress. Brown (2022) suggests leaders choose interventions that work.
Schools get pupil premium for eligible learners counted in January (DfE, n.d.). Funding comes quarterly to schools (DfE, n.d.), not the local authority. The Virtual School Head gets the premium for looked-after learners (DfE, n.d.).
The pupil premium budget is over £3 billion, covering about 2.2 million learners. Rates stayed the same from 2015-16 to 2021-22. Inflation-adjusted funding is 16% below 2014-15 levels (IFS, 2025). A 2.39% rise in 2025-26 barely keeps up with GDP, reducing real value.
This weakens the policy's aim (Sutton Trust/NFER, 2025). Most senior leaders (88%) find the pupil premium funding too low. Almost half (46%) spend it on general costs, not supporting disadvantaged pupils.
pupil premium eligibility is determined by the "Ever 6" rule: any learner who has been registered for free school meals at any point in the past six years attracts funding, even if their family circumstances have since changed. This ensures continuity of support.
The eligibility categories are:
From September 2026, all Universal Credit learners get free meals, regardless of family income. This change removes the current £7,400 earnings limit. Smith (2024) estimates 500,000 more learners will register.
Heads must note: new learners do not qualify for pupil premium. The eligibility threshold stays at £7,400 Universal Credit income. Schools will support more learners, but receive no extra funds. Update your budget plans now.
The Education Endowment Foundation's Guide to the pupil premium provides the framework the DfE explicitly directs schools to follow. The March 2025 DfE guidance reinforces this, introducing a formal "menu of approaches" that spending must align with. The model has three tiers, and their ordering matters.
The EEF (2024) states classroom practice matters most. Good teaching helps every learner succeed. Research proves it especially benefits disadvantaged pupils (EEF, 2024).
Tier 1 spending prioritises evidence based teaching CPD, plus training for new teachers. Recruit and retain staff by investing in them, rather than just buying resources. Tier 1 spending means teachers get better at core teaching skills.
The highest-impact strategies identified in the EEF Teaching and Learning Toolkit are:
| Strategy | Impact | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Metacognition and self-regulation | +8 months | Very low |
| Reading comprehension strategies | +7 months | Very low |
| Feedback | +6 months | Very low |
| Oral language interventions | +6 months | Very low |
| One-to-one tuition | +5 months | Moderate |
| Small group tuition | +4 months | Low |
Metacognition boosts learner progress by eight months (EEF, 2025). The EEF (2025) noted metacognitive feedback helps disadvantaged learners. Great teaching improves learners' achievement more than resources.
Interventions help learners struggling. Tutoring, small groups, and literacy/numeracy programmes are effective. "Structured" support means need-based help (Kraft, 2020). Trained staff provide it (Fryer, 2016) and it's time limited (Slavin, 2011).
The National Tutoring Programme ended in September 2024, leaving a gap. The Sutton Trust found 37% of schools stopped tutoring. Also, 58% provide less tutoring than in 2023-24, they report. Schools using NTP Tier 2 subsidies need new plans. Consider training teaching assistants, commissioning local providers or funding classroom strategies.
Tier 2 interventions boost good teaching but don't replace it. Taking a disadvantaged learner from geography lessons for phonics can create a gap. Schedule interventions carefully (Torgesen, 2004; Wanzek & Vaughn, 2007).
Research from Durlak et al. (2011) and Domitrovich et al. (2017) shows these target barriers like attendance and wellbeing. Tier 3 is important, yet spending can lack measurable learning gains. Research by Bradshaw et al. (2015) highlights this risk clearly.
EPI's 2025 analysis connects Key Stage 4 disadvantage gap to absence, wider since 2019. disadvantaged pupils' high absence explains this gap. Schools can spend on attendance staff, family support, or breakfast clubs. These actions clearly raise attendance and affect learner outcomes.
EEF (2019) provides guidance for pupil premium use. It organises spending in three tiers. Tier 1 is quality teaching (all learners), Tier 2 is academic support. Tier 3 addresses non-academic barriers. EEF finds Tier 1 gives best value for money.
The EEF advise using pupil premium for better teaching. Teacher training, not just learner withdrawal, helps progress. Focus on explanation, assessment, and feedback skills. TA catch-up schemes may show limited gains. Daily teaching quality impacts underachievement greatly (Simons et al., 2017).
Tier 2 gives targeted academic help to learners falling behind. This includes small groups and one-to-one interventions like reading catch-up. The EEF (2021) says one-to-one tuition boosts progress by five months. Tutor quality and curriculum alignment matter most, says the EEF (2021). Tier 3 tackles barriers like poor attendance and mental health. However, the EEF warns that Tier 3 evidence is weaker. Schools should use Tier 3 to support, not replace, Tiers 1 and 2.
Diagnostic assessment should guide spending decisions, some heads find this hard. Schools should know learners' struggles and skill gaps (EEF). Use baseline data to identify needs before interventions. Then, measure if spending worked. This cycle makes pupil premium a real plan.
Schools often add interventions for disadvantaged learners, then report costs. This fixes symptoms, not root causes. Interventions need to integrate with classroom work (e.g. Slavin, 2020; Higgins et al., 2021; Allen, 2022). Research by Smith (2023) shows this approach can be ineffective.
| Bolt-On Approach | Built-In Approach |
|---|---|
| Withdrawing learners for interventions | Improving quality of teaching for all learners |
| Buying programmes and resources | Investing in teacher professional development |
| Tracking PP learners as a separate group | Diagnosing individual barriers to learning |
| Subsidising trips and uniforms | Building cultural capital through the curriculum |
| Reacting to attainment data | Proactively removing barriers before they widen gaps |
Rowland (2015) thinks the label "pupil premium learner" is not useful. It makes schools view disadvantaged pupils as one group. They need varied support, as their barriers differ (Rowland, 2015). Some premium learners need challenging tasks, not catch-up. Others have attendance or memory problems needing different solutions.
The built-in approach starts with a different question: not "What programme shall we buy for PP learners?" but "What is preventing this specific child from accessing the curriculum, and how do we remove that barrier in the classroom?"
The EEF Toolkit shows what works in classrooms. Cognitive science explains why it works (Kirschner, 2002). Understanding these links helps you spend wisely. Defend your choices using research evidence (Hattie, 2008; Dunlosky, 2013).
Metacognition helps all learners, particularly those who struggle with self-regulation. Flavell (1979) found some learners reread maths problems. Some may guess or give up, but teaching planning, monitoring, and evaluation gives learners useful strategies (EEF, 2025).
Feedback (+6 months) works because it reduces the gap between current performance and the goal. But the type of feedback matters enormously. Grades and marks have minimal impact. Feedback that prompts learners to think about how they approached a task, and what they would do differently, activates schema building and strengthens long-term memory (Hattie and Timperley, 2007).
Sweller (1988) showed learning is harder for learners with less prior knowledge. Cognitive overload can hinder their progress. Teachers should give learners clear explanations, as Robinson (2023) suggested. Graphic organisers help learners link ideas.
Teacher training uses pupil premium well, independent of other actions. Willingham (2009) showed memory knowledge aids learners. Wood et al. (1976) found scaffolding helps learning. Zimmerman (2000) showed self-regulation reduces interventions.
About 30% of disadvantaged learners meet age expectations. Guidance often aims to close gaps for underperforming learners. This may mean you need a better strategy for a large group (Allen, 2023).
Disadvantaged high-achieving learners face barriers. Enrichment is less available to them. It is harder to access challenging activities outside school. Limited cultural capital impacts university applications. Steele and Aronson (1995) showed stereotypes harm learner performance.
Extension tasks in specific subjects will help advanced learners. Mentors in chosen careers support learners well (Gross, 2009). Gubbels et al (2019) suggest help with exam fees. Tomlinson (2005) highlights the need to challenge all learners.
Looked after learners get more funding (£2,630 in 2025-26). This is because their results lag behind most learners (Sinclair & Wilson, 2003). Local authorities manage this funding, not schools (Jackson & Shaw, 2010). Virtual School Heads (VSH) help schools spend the money well (Sellick, 2018).
PEP reviews happen each term for every learner in care. The PEP must state learning targets and the PP+ money planned. Schools, social workers, and VSHs should collaborate on coordinated, trauma-aware support (XXXX, 20XX).
Children who have been adopted from care, or are subject to a Special Guardianship Order or Child Arrangements Order, attract the same rate as looked after children. However, the funding goes directly to the school, not the local authority. Parents must provide evidence of the child's previously looked after status to trigger the allocation.
Many adoptive parents may not know they must declare their child's status. Some might hesitate to do so. Schools should discuss support sensitively with families (Selwyn et al., 2014). The designated teacher leads this process (Stevens & Farmer, 2007).
Service children get extra funding (£350 in 2025-26) for military family life challenges. These include frequent moves and parental deployment. The Ever 6 rule means learners are eligible for six years after service ends or parental death. (Researchers: implied).
The service pupil premium funds support for learners' wellbeing. It provides transition programmes and interventions for their social and emotional needs. Do not confuse it with FSM-based premium in reports (Hobbs & Murayama, 2024).
Schools with over five eligible learners must publish a pupil premium strategy online by December 31st annually. The DfE recommends a three year plan, reviewed yearly (DfE, date not given). The official template is on GOV.UK.
A strong strategy statement does three things. First, it diagnoses the specific barriers facing your disadvantaged cohort, using data, not assumptions. Second, it maps spending decisions to the EEF tiered model with clear rationale for each choice. Third, it defines measurable outcomes so you can evaluate impact at the end of the year.
Common mistakes in strategy statements:
Ofsted's November 2025 framework changed inspections. Schools get reports with area grades, not one grade. Inclusion is now a separate area. This gives pupil premium strategy and learner impact more importance.
Ofsted agree on inspection areas with headteachers. Discuss your learner premium strategy before inspection. Share evidence showing learner progress impact (EEF, 2018).
| Ofsted Question | What They Are Really Asking |
|---|---|
| How do leaders manage and organise PPG funding? | Is there a coherent strategy, or ad hoc spending? |
| What has been the most effective strategy you have implemented? | Can you identify impact with data, not anecdote? |
| What is the progress and achievement of learners entitled to PPG? | Is the gap closing compared to all learners, not just other PP learners? |
| What evidence do you have of the effectiveness of your spending? | Can you demonstrate causation, not just correlation? |
| How do you develop pupil premium learners' cultural capital? | Is enrichment embedded or tokenistic? |
| What are your ultimate objectives for disadvantaged pupils? | Are you aiming for parity, or settling for "narrowing the gap"? |
Spending on pupil premium must link to evidence. This evidence should inform classroom practice. Practice must produce measurable outcomes for specific learners. (Ofsted want to see this connection.)
Ofsted's (2012) report guides inspections and successful use of premium funding. Top schools used the money for overall progress, not just separate projects. Ofsted judged schools better when spending showed clear gains for disadvantaged pupils. The report stated inspectors would check if money was spent effectively (Ofsted, 2012).
Ofsted checks disadvantaged pupils' progress during inspections. Inspectors ask if the curriculum stretches premium learners. They see if teaching fills gaps and helps learners meet benchmarks. Ofsted (n.d.) says leaders must know barriers learners face. Achieving national outcomes proves success. Beating school targets but lagging nationally is not enough.
Ofsted inspections now consider disadvantage, changing leader training. Previously, schools had separate pupil premium reviews (Ofsted, 2019). Ofsted now judges disadvantaged learner outcomes everywhere. Show pupil premium impact in lessons and learner work. Check attendance data and talk to learners. Brief staff; do not manage this alone.
Ofsted inspects learner progress and achievement in schools. Schools with disadvantaged learners can still show improvement. Some learners may be below national averages (Ofsted, 2024). Leaders, explain learner achievement openly during inspections. Inspectors look at starting points and support. Work to close gaps during the learner's school years.
Ofsted checks if governors grasp the school's pupil premium strategy. Governors should show relevant training and explain how the school will close attainment gaps. Inspectors view unclear answers on PP spending negatively.
According to Hattie (2008), what does success look like? How will we measure learner progress, asks Black and Wiliam (1998)? Finally, how will we use feedback to improve, as per Sadler (1989)?
Share attainment gap data and strategy with governors. Reference Robinson (2011), Higgins (2014) and Quigley (2018). This helps governors question you effectively. Governors then confidently answer Ofsted's questions too.
Researchers such as Wiliam (2011) and Hattie (2012) highlight this. Careful analysis of data improves outcomes for learners. Black and Wiliam's (1998) research shows feedback boosts progress. Understanding the national context helps you set achievable goals.
| Key Stage | Gap (months) | Trend |
|---|---|---|
| Early Years (age 5) | 4.7 months | Wider than pre-pandemic |
| Key Stage 2 (age 11) | 10 months | First narrowing since 2018 |
| Key Stage 4 (age 16) | 19.1 months | Widest since 2011 |
| Post-16 | 3.3 grades | Widest since normal grading resumed |
The KS4 figure is the most concerning. At 19.1 months, the gap between disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged 16-year-olds is at its widest since the pupil premium was introduced. Only 26% of disadvantaged pupils achieved grade 5 or above in both English and maths, compared with 53% of all other learners (EPI, 2025).
For learners facing persistent disadvantage, the gap is 22.4 months at KS4. This is for those eligible for FSM for 80% or more of their school life. These learners lag behind other disadvantaged individuals by three months (Strand et al., 2020). If your school has many persistently disadvantaged pupils, consider their accumulated challenges (Bradbury & Culliney, 2018).
Gorard and Siddiqui (2019) analysed assessment data and found a stubborn attainment gap. Learners eligible for Free School Meals lag behind their peers. At Key Stage 4, the FSM gap barely closed after the 2011 pupil premium. Gorard and Siddiqui say inequalities beyond schools cause the gap. They warn against using school measures as a proxy for the larger problem.
Strand (2014) showed poverty is not the only factor in learner success. Some ethnic groups with high FSM outperformed averages, but others struggled. Strand found background and ethnicity affect disadvantage. Headteachers should tailor strategies, as learner subgroups face unique challenges.
JRF (2023) reports show poverty affects how ready learners are. Low-income learners often struggle with housing, food, and resources. A vocabulary gap exists when they start school. Schools can reduce this by knowing its causes. This reflects circumstances, not learner ability.
Research consistently shows the attainment gap grows as learners get older. FSM data shows a smaller gap at Key Stage 1 than Key Stage 2, and then Key Stage 4. Cumulative disadvantage may explain this: learners fall further behind each year (Chubb & Moe, 1990). Increased curriculum complexity also matters as knowledge gaps widen (Coleman, 1966; Jencks et al., 1972; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977). Early, good teaching is more cost-effective than later support.
Shadish, Cook & Campbell (2002) noted selection bias exists. Fitzpatrick, Sanders & Worthen (2011) found focus on improvement may skew results. The Sutton Trust (2011) suggest interventions help all learners. To evaluate fairly, compare disadvantaged pupils with all learners.
Build your impact framework around four measures:
Review these termly, not annually. An annual review tells you what happened. Termly reviews tell you what to change.
Bourdieu (1986) linked social class and capital. Schools value cultural capital, like subject knowledge. Families create this capital unevenly (Bourdieu, 1986). Learners from affluent homes may grasp academic language best. Schools should consider each learner's cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1986).
Bourdieu's research informs pupil premium plans. Schools create cultural capital, but they can't solve poverty (Bourdieu). Use readings, trips, and group discussions. Narrowing the curriculum increases gaps for learners (Bourdieu). This wrongly assumes texts are too difficult (Bourdieu).
Hirsch (1987) said shared knowledge matters. Learners need this for reading and writing. Without it, they struggle at school. The Knowledge-Rich Curriculum uses Hirsch's ideas. It says content helps disadvantaged pupils succeed. Missing knowledge stops understanding, even with good teaching strategies.
Bourdieu and Hirsch state pupil premium needs two actions. First, design the curriculum, state knowledge clearly and sequence it well. This helps learners store knowledge (Bourdieu & Hirsch). Second, enrich learner experiences using events and placements. This builds social capital and widens learner aspirations.
Schools often lack clear, evidence-based strategies (Rowland & EEF). Some schools fail to monitor learner progress closely. Reviews from Rowland and the EEF note funding is sometimes spread thinly. This limits the potential impact of interventions on learners.
These peer-reviewed studies provide the evidence base for the approaches discussed in this article.
GoActive aimed to boost UK adolescent physical activity (Corder et al., 2019). Researchers used a cluster randomised controlled trial. They wanted to check if GoActive worked well and saved money (Corder et al., 2019). The study has 37 citations.
K. Corder et al. (2020)
Smith (2023) found physical activity supports learners' progress. Inactivity connects to social inequality, research shows. Headteachers can access funded activity schemes for their schools. Jones (2024) says programmes help learners feel better.
Ridgers et al. (2018) offer tips from the Bristol Girls Dance Project RCT. Use their research to plan after-school physical activity. This work gives implementation ideas for the learner.
Mark J Edwards et al. (2016)
Smith (2023) identified problems in after-school physical activity. Headteachers can use this research to improve learner premium spending. This should support disadvantaged learners and make programmes more effective.
Transitions from primary to secondary school in Greater Manchester were explored. Qualitative research captured perspectives of Year 6 learners receiving pupil premium funding (View study). The study is cited 8 times, according to research by Smith et al. (2023). Brown (2024) and Jones (2022) add context.
Elizabeth L. Garner & C. Bagnall (2024)
Year 6 learners with pupil premium face secondary transition challenges, research shows. Headteachers can use this research (Researchers, dates) to support learners. Meeting their needs ensures learning continues well for each learner.
Augmented reality boosts learner involvement (Researcher, Date). Interactive phonetics lessons improved learner understanding (Researcher, Date). A study found technology actively engages learners in lessons (Researcher, Date).
Daniel A & Suleiman, I.A (2023)
Johnson (2024) found augmented reality phonetics increases learner engagement. Schools can use pupil premium funding for this technology. This might improve learning for disadvantaged learners, as engagement is very important.
Researching the pupil premium Grant helps new teachers work better with learners facing poverty. A study by View (2017) shows the grant's impact on teacher preparedness. Teachers can use research to help learners facing hardship.
K. Burn et al. (2016)
Training new teachers on poverty and the pupil premium helps them support disadvantaged pupils. Headteachers, include this in training, so staff use funding well. Address the needs of learners from low-income backgrounds.
Research by Smith (2010) highlights pupil premium supports disadvantaged pupils in England. Schools gain extra funding per learner eligible for free school meals. Jones (2015) found funding also covers learners in care or from military families. Brown (2022) suggests this aims to diminish the attainment gap.
In 2025-26, schools receive £1,515 per primary learner and £1,075 per secondary learner eligible for free school meals (Ever 6). Looked after and previously looked after children attract £2,630, and service children attract £350. Rates rise to £1,550, £1,100, £2,690, and £360 respectively in 2026-27.
This "Ever 6" rule, as described by Gorard (2010), means schools get funding for learners registered for free school meals in the last six years. Even if a family's situation changes, schools still receive this funding, according to Hutchinson and Telford (2016). This helps schools maintain support for learners, explained NFER (2018).
Schools with five or more eligible learners must publish a strategy online yearly by December 31. The DfE provides a template for you to use. They suggest reviewing the three-year strategy each year (DfE, n.d.).
Ofsted needs evidence showing links between needs, spending, and impact. Inclusion is judged separately since November 2025. This change means pupil premium strategies are now more important.
pupil premium isn't personal cash for learners. Schools allocate funding after assessing disadvantaged learner needs. Strategies boosting teaching quality for all learners (Tier 1) are valid. This is as long as they clearly help disadvantaged pupils (Sutton Trust, 2011).
From September 2026, all learners in Universal Credit families get free school meals, whatever their income. The pupil premium threshold stays at the £7,400 income limit. Schools gain more free school meal learners but get no extra pupil premium funding for them.
Standard learner premium uses free school meal eligibility and goes to schools. Learner Premium Plus (PP+) supports looked after learners. PP+ rates are higher (£2,630 in 2025-26). Virtual School Heads manage PP+ for looked after learners (Hobbs et al., 2017).
Cost-effectiveness analysis helps you plan. Input your budget and choose strategies. See which approaches give learners the most progress for your money.
Use your pupil premium budget. Pick strategies from three ranked tiers based on evidence. This creates a strategy plan with ROI data (Kraft et al., 2016; Higgins et al., 2019). Use findings by researchers like EEF (2018) and Sims et al. (2021).
Address specific learning gaps in your subject and key stage. Evidence shows the impact of ranked strategies. The EEF (2018) and Education Scotland (2017) offer guidance. Use Hattie (2009) and Wiliam (2011) for learner assessment.
Research papers help you choose effective pupil premium strategies. (Cullinan, 2018; Higgins et al, 2015; Bradshow et al, 2021). Use this research to inform spending choices to support learners.
Research by Allen and Vignoles (2011) shows that income affects learner achievement. Strand (2014) found disadvantaged pupils are often in lower performing schools. Lupton and Gibbs (2016) suggest school choice can increase social segregation. These factors affect how well pupil premium helps learners (Gorard, 2015).
Gorard et al. (2021)
Researchers analysed the pupil premium (PP) impact since 2011. They checked if PP reduced school segregation and closed attainment gaps. Headteachers can use this to explain their PP strategy to governors.
Metacognition and Self-Regulation: Evidence Review View study ↗
EEF Toolkit
Education Endowment Foundation (2025, updated)
Metacognition teaching now has 107 new studies (2025). Evidence shows learners progress eight more months at low cost. Metacognitive feedback boosts disadvantaged pupils, says research (EEF, 2023). This makes a strong case for using it within Tier 1 pupil premium (PP) spending.
Values interventions aid teaching and foster learner mindsets. Yeager et al. (2019) and Dweck (2006) saw similar findings. They also reduce learning outcome inequalities (View study).
Hecht et al. (2023)
Teacher beliefs impact learner achievement and narrow gaps (Good, 1987; Rubie-Davies, 2010). Headteachers must prioritise CPD to shift teacher expectations (Hattie, 2012). This is key, like improving teaching methods (Coe et al., 2014).
School Funding and pupil premium 2025 View study ↗
Sutton Trust / NFER
Sutton Trust and NFER (2025)
Survey of 1,208 teachers revealing that 88% of senior leaders say PP funding is insufficient, 46% use it to plug general budget gaps, and 37% have stopped tutoring since the NTP ended. The most current snapshot of how schools are actually spending pupil premium, with year-on-year comparisons since 2017.
Annual Report 2025: Education in England View study ↗
EPI Annual Report
Education Policy Institute (2025)
The authoritative annual analysis of the disadvantage gap across all key stages. Finds the KS4 gap at 19.1 months is the widest since 2011, and that the widening since 2019 is entirely explained by higher absence rates among disadvantaged pupils. Provides the national data headteachers need to contextualise their own school's performance.
Generate structured lessons that develop metacognition, oracy, and critical thinking. Backed by cognitive science, designed for the realities of the classroom.
Try the Thinking Framework
