£30bn wasted on failed bid to boost poorest children's grades
Researchers found the scheme, which was launched by Nick Clegg, the former deputy prime minister, has not delivered any meaningful results despite its huge price tag.
Under the 'pupil premium' schools are given extra grant cash based on the number of their students who are eligible for free school meals.
Introduced by Mr Clegg in 2011, it was designed to help close the attainment gap between children from wealthier and poorer households.
But a report by the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) found that, almost 15 years later, official data shows the difference in grades has 'barely narrowed'.
The think tank said its findings raised questions about whether the pupil premium, which will cost another £10 billion by the end of the decade, is 'fit for purpose'.
At around £3 billion a year the scheme costs the same as Britain's annual support to Ukraine and is twice as expensive as the winter fuel payment.
The CSJ found that, despite the extra funding, the attainment gap at both primary schools and secondary schools was wider in 2023-24 than in 2016-17.
It also discovered that disadvantaged pupils at six in 10 schools had worse outcomes on average in 2023-24 than they did before the pandemic.
The report said: 'Fourteen years on, the stark reality is that attainment gaps between disadvantaged pupils and their peers have barely narrowed.
'This raises serious questions about whether the policy – in its current form – remains fit for purpose.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
Business news live: Bitcoin hits new high, interest rates cut hint and EU tariff threat
Starting a week where the UK will get its latest official inflation data, the Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey has suggested that interest rates will be cut once more next month, saying the 'downward path' remains on course as businesses tighten up the jobs market following the rise in National Insurance Contributions. In the money markets, shares are expected to open lower on Monday for FTSE 100 firms, while bitcoin continues its record surge to hit new highs well above $120,000. Silver, gold and Brent Crude oil have also all been on the rise, but the pound has continued to drop against the dollar. Additionally, we'll be watching out for any tariff -related retaliation as the EU steps up its offensive against the US with a $24bn tariff list ready to go into effect if the two cannot reach a trade deal.
Telegraph
31 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Starmer accused of ‘downplaying' Troubles veterans' plight
Sir Keir Starmer has been accused of 'downplaying' the plight of Troubles' veterans who face prosecution under Labour's proposals to change the law. The Government plans to axe legislation that stopped fresh historical inquests into deaths that occurred in Northern Ireland during The Troubles, as well as civil actions. Labour has said that the 2023 Legacy Act is unpopular with Irish political parties and victims' groups, and judged incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Tim Collins, an ex-British Army colonel who gave a famously stirring eve-of-battle speech on the eve of the Iraq War, said that Sir Keir was 'on the wrong side of the argument'. Col Collins, who is from Northern Ireland, attended Parliament on Wednesday to hear the Prime Minister respond to concerns raised in the Commons about the plans. Sir David Davis said that if the plans are not reversed, the Government will 'sacrifice' veterans to 'politically-motivated lawyers trying to rewrite history with a pack of lies'. Sir Keir in turn accused Sir David of 'cheapening the debate' and 'political point-scoring' with his remarks. Writing for The Telegraph, Col Collins said that the Prime Minister had been 'frivolous and even disdainful' when responding to Sir David's concerns. He said: 'The Prime Minister resorted to downplaying an issue that will confront every Labour MP during the upcoming recess. 'As they return to their constituencies, they will face a wave of furious constituents, incensed by the Government's harsh and unwarranted treatment of veterans while seemingly rewarding those who waged a 30-year campaign against the British people.' It comes ahead of a debate in Parliament on Monday about the proposed changes to the Legacy Act, with several hundred veterans expected to descend on Whitehall to protest. The Prime Minister said on Wednesday that Sir David 'knows this is a serious issue' but that the phrasing of his question 'did not really reflect that seriousness'. He told MPs: 'We have to tread carefully and we have to get this right, and I'll work with him on that, but we don't get there by cheapening the debate. 'It's not about political point-scoring. I've worked in Northern Ireland, I've spoken to many of the people affected and I know that we must get this right.' He added: 'We have to do that in a serious way to address the issues of the past, of course, in a way that has support of victims and survivors. 'That is a key test for me because without the support of victims and survivors I think it's very hard in Northern Ireland to come up with something that will have the confidence of everybody in Northern Ireland, which is why we have to work in the way we do'. The Northern Ireland veterans' tsar told The Telegraph last month that up to 70 former soldiers could end up 'in the dock' over their actions against the IRA on behalf of the British government. Col Collins said: 'Families across the UK sent their sons to keep the peace in Northern Ireland. Many never came home. 'As summer recess nears, constituents should ask their MPs a simple question: Whose side are you on? 'Will they support costly historical revisionism that diverts funds from the NHS and welfare, or will they stand with the majority of British citizens and reject baseless prosecutions?' The shameful betrayal by the PM over our Northern Ireland veterans Watching on from the Special Gallery in the House of Commons during Prime Minister's Questions, I was dumbstruck by the Prime Minister's response to a detailed question from Sir David Davis MP regarding the protection of Northern Ireland Veterans. The PM was frankly frivolous and even disdainful to even be questioned on this very important issue, didn't you know he worked in Northern Ireland? Here, I thought, is a man who needs to play to the benches behind him, a man who knows he is on the wrong side of an argument that may well contribute to his downfall. Feeling the intense scrutiny of his own Labour MPs, the Prime Minister resorted to downplaying an issue that will confront every Labour MP during the upcoming recess. As they return to their constituencies, they will face a wave of furious constituents, incensed by the Government's harsh and unwarranted treatment of veterans while seemingly rewarding those who waged a 30-year campaign against the British people. Before Labour MPs face this reality, a Parliamentary debate is set for Monday, prompted by a petition titled 'Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecution,' which has amassed over 167,000 signatures in just over two months. In my view, this is fundamentally about stopping the politically-driven harassment of our veterans, which seeks to distort and rewrite history. This Labour Government has already stated that they plan to repeal the Northern Ireland Legacy Act, making it again possible to mount criminal cases against armed forces Veterans whilst simultaneously making it easier for those who waged war against the state and their political representatives, including Gerry Adams, to gain compensation for 30 years of malice and terrorism. After three decades of violence, the Provisional IRA and Sinn Féin, widely seen as its political wing, entered a peace process led by the Government. As part of this, the Blair administration issued over 200 'comfort letters' to individuals suspected of serious crimes, providing them with written assurances that they would not face prosecution. No such guarantees were given to the MoD, nor were they considered necessary at the time. Over 90 per cent of killings during the Troubles were perpetuated by illegal paramilitary groups, with the IRA responsible for the vast majority, including most murders within their own Catholic community. In contrast, the police and armed forces accounted for less than 10 per cent of killings, with nearly all of these, lawful, under clear and established rules of engagement. In the rare instances of wrongdoing, charges were brought, and cases were adjudicated. The state acted to protect civilians from sectarian violence. Through the immense service and bravery of soldiers and police officers, full-scale civil war was averted. Tragically, 800 soldiers and over 300 police officers killed, with thousands more left permanently injured. Now, in an effort to rewrite history for a new generation, malevolent forces are seeking prosecutions for events, often over 50 years ago, in the knowledge that many, if not all, have no chance of achieving a prosecution. But the goal isn't justice, it's creating a new narrative. A revised version of history, funded by UK taxpayers, designed to suit the agenda of our former enemies. While Sinn Féin has mobilised a cadre of republican-sympathising lawyers, bankrolled by public funds, the Ministry of Defence and Northern Ireland Office are locked in negotiation. Indeed, one Northern Ireland MP told me the Irish Government is effectively driving the Northern Ireland Office's approach. The process now resembles a Dutch auction. The Irish Government wants up to 14 cases, possibly involving multiple veterans, while the MoD argues for none. A compromise looms, with several weak cases likely proceeding, despite the passage of time and scant evidence. What do the respective governments gain? For Starmer, it's the prestige of appearing progressive on the global stage, earning praise from left-leaning circles for confronting history, even if that history is distorted or fabricated. Additionally, some also have a very close personal interest. Notably, the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, previously represented former Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams against claims made against him. For the Irish Government, a historic coalition of two parties once divided by the Irish Civil War, the stakes are nearly existential. With Sinn Féin resurgent and poised to potentially seize power in the next election, the coalition must outshine Sinn Féin's republican credentials to secure their political survival. Targeting British veterans offers a convenient way to do so, especially when the British taxpayer foots the bill. This issue extends far beyond Ireland. Families across the UK sent their sons to keep the peace in Northern Ireland. Many never came home. As summer recess nears, constituents should ask their MPs a simple question: Whose side are you on? Will they support costly historical revisionism that diverts funds from of the NHS and welfare, or will they stand with the majority of British citizens and reject baseless prosecutions? Following last week's contentious Welfare Bill vote and its chaotic whipping process, MPs' responses could shape the Prime Minister's future. Perhaps that explains his decision to play the man and not the issue in his dismissive response to David Davis MP. Our nation expects better.
Daily Mail
40 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Inside the misunderstood relationship between Queen Elizabeth II and Margaret Thatcher
Claims that the former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the late Queen had a strained relationship were 'nonsense,' a royal insider has revealed. On paper, Queen Elizabeth II and Margaret Thatcher should have had one of the best working relationships of any monarch and Prime Minister. They were both a similar age - with Thatcher just months older than Elizabeth - and both grew up during the Second World War where they did their part to help the war effort. And, perhaps crucially, they were also both powerful women in a world that was still very much dominated by men. However, despite this, their relationship during Thatcher's 11 years as prime minister was instead defined by rumours that the pair did not get along. This burst on to the front pages of the papers in 1986 when it was revealed that Elizabeth was said to be 'dismayed' by the 'uncaring' PM's refusal to impose sanctions on apartheid South Africa, fearing that Mrs Thatcher's decision would split the Commonwealth. It was the most apparent public falling out between the Queen and her prime minister of her reign. And the rift was even a prominent plotline in the hit Netflix series The Crown. However, royal author and broadcaster Gyles Brandreth has claimed that their relationship was not as icy as the press at the time claimed but instead was misunderstood. Writing in his royal biography Elizabeth, An Intimate Portrait, Brandreth said that Thatcher told him that talk of the pair having a strained relationship was 'a lot of nonsense' and the Queen described the late Tory Prime Minister as 'simply marvellous' highlighting her commitment to the Commonwealth and the Armed Forces. Brandreth claims that while the Queen and Thatcher might not have seen eye-to-eye on policies - with the Queen having been known to be a small-c conservative compared to Thatchers more right-wing views - there is no evidence to suggest Elizabeth actively disliked Thatcher. The broadcaster highlights that the Queen showed the first female PM 'considerable respect' during her long period in office. For example, she dined at No.10 in 1985, appointed Thatcher the Order of Merit within a fortnight of her resignation in 1990 and honoured her with the Order of the Garter five years later. On top of this, Elizabeth was a guest at both Thatcher's 70th and 80th birthday celebrations and she attended Thatcher's funeral in 2013. The only other funeral that she attended was Winston Churchill. This however does not mean there is no evidence that their personalities clashed on more than one occasion. According to former royal butler Paul Burrell, Elizabeth II started washing up once in front of then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher after a picnic. Thatcher was adamant that the monarch should not be cleaning kitchenware. But Paul claims a compromise was found when Elizabeth told Thatcher: "Well I'll wash, will you dry?"' The Queen and Baroness Thatcher at her 80th birthday party. Brandreth claims that while the Queen and Thatcher might not have seen eye-to-eye on policies there is no evidence to suggest Elizabeth actively disliked Thatcher In another instance at Balmoral in the eighties, Susannah Constantine claimed that Thatcher once 'booted the Queen out for the way' in order to make tea for herself. The fashion guru, who dated the Queen's nephew David Linley for eight years, said that the former Prime Minister 'just wanted control' and was 'incredibly bossy'. Susannah said that the royal party were in a fishing hut on the grounds of the Scottish castle when Her Majesty was trying to serve her guests tea. 'The Queen would want to pour everyone's tea and I remember Margaret Thatcher almost booting her out of the way to pour the tea herself for everyone,' she said. As a staunch royalist, Thatcher had huge admiration for the Queen and - according to Brandreth - 'never failed to show her respect for the Queen'. This included arriving on time for her weekly meetings with Her Majesty but in some cases the Iron Lady would take her punctuality to the extreme. 'Whenever it [her weekly meeting] was scheduled to take place at Windsor Castle, she would get her driver to arrive on the outskirts of Windsor at least half an hour early for the appointment and they would sit in a lay-by,' Brandreth wrote. During their very first meeting in 1979, a nervous Thatcher reportedly went into the 'deepest curtsy the equerry had ever seen'. Brandreth wrote that the newly elected Thatcher was very nervous ahead of the meeting and the equerry guiding her to the Queen in the palace sensed her nervousness and reminded her to curtsy. Once in the room, Thatcher's curtsied so far down that she couldn't get back up. The equerry told Brandreth: 'We had to help her up. I took one side and the Queen took the other. We brought her to her feet and said no more about it. 'After the audience, when I collected Thatcher to take her back to her car, I said "Shall we just pause in this anteroom for a little curtsy practice?" We did.' Over 25 years later, at her 80th birthday party Thatcher performed another noticeably deep curtsy when greeting the Queen and Prince Philip at her 80th birthday party. Daily Mail columnist Andrew Pierce witnessed the curtsy firsthand and recalled the moment on an episode of the Mail's Reaction podcast. Pierce said Her Majesty's presence at the glitzy party at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Knightsbridge betrayed the 'nonsense' that the Queen did not like Britain's first female PM. 'The helicopter landed in Hyde Park, the Queen and Prince Philip arrived,' he added. 'Mrs. Thatcher did the deepest curtsy you've ever seen... at the age of 80. I didn't think she was ever gonna get up again.' It came a decade after Mrs Thatcher appeared to curtsey even lower to the Queen at her 70th birthday party. And on several occasions while in Downing Street between 1979 and 1990, Mrs Thatcher was pictured curtseying to the monarch - who she saw regularly at their weekly audiences. On the episode of The Reaction, Mr Pierce also described the touching moment when the Queen held Baroness Thatcher's hand at her 80th. The former PM was then both physically frail and had a failing memory. 'It was so lovely,' he told co-presenter and fellow Mail writer Sarah Vine.
