Imagine the lives of two children aged 16. Both from under-resourced backgrounds, they’ve spent the vast majority of their school lives on free school meals. They are what researchers call “persistently disadvantaged” pupils – children who have experienced poverty throughout most of their education. That distinction matters. New analysis by the Education Policy Institute, commissioned by Teach First, shows that by the end of secondary school, persistently disadvantaged pupils are, on average, 6.7 months behind disadvantaged pupils whose experience of poverty is shorter-lived. Sustained poverty leaves a cumulative mark on children’s outcomes. Now imagine one grows up in Blackpool. One in London. Both live in households navigating the same grinding financial pressure. But by the time they sit their GCSEs, the child in Blackpool is, on average, two and a half years of learning behind their non-disadvantaged classmates. Their expected grade in GCSE English and Maths is 2.7, nearly a grade and a half below a standard pass. The child in London is also behind their more affluent peers, but by just over a year. Their expected grade in the same subjects is closer to 4. Both children experience the same poverty on paper, but their educational attainment is dramatically different – a gap that compounds as they age. Running a different race Our report maps, for the first time, how the attainment gap for persistently disadvantaged pupils (eligible for free school meals for at least 80 per cent of their time in school) varies across England. Aged 16, children face the moment when their path toward work, further study, and adult independence begins to take shape. A child who reaches that transition point two and a half years behind their peers is not starting from a different position but running an entirely different race Typically, this gap continues to widen as children consider their next steps. Nationally, one in four persistently disadvantaged pupils has no sustained qualification or apprenticeship pathway at the start of Year 12. In North Somerset, it is more than one in two. In the London Borough of Camden, it is one in ten. A rift opens up in primary school, widens through secondary, and reaches its most consequential point at 16 where, for too many young people, it tips over into leaving formal education or training entirely. London proves that trajectory is not inevitable. The capital’s stronger outcomes are not a function of shallower poverty – Tower Hamlets, Hackney, and Newham are among the most deprived boroughs in England. They are partly the product of sustained investment in school leadership and high-quality teaching in a place over more than two decades. A collective focus The London Challenge gave a collective focus, built leadership collaboration and progression opportunities that gave teachers reasons to stay. Teach First started here. It created, over time, the conditions in which even children who have known sustained poverty could achieve at high levels. The data shows it working still. And that is why Teach First is piloting a targeted placement strategy to increase teacher and leadership supply in places such as Blackpool and Thanet. We are pleased to see the government’s announcement of Mission Coastal and North East. Imagine the scale of change if all schools across England were empowered in the same way. From speaking with school leaders working with persistently disadvantaged pupils outside London, two themes emerge repeatedly: a lack of recognition for this group and insufficient resources to meet their needs. This group – perhaps the most disadvantaged children in England’s schools – is not tracked as a distinct category in national data. There is no government measure or annual reporting of their outcomes. Many teachers and leaders do exceptional work for these children that changes the trajectory of their lives. But this work is not reflected in national performance data. And schools where the gap is widening cannot send a targeted signal that support is needed. Introducing a standard definition and tracking outcomes for this group is the precondition for any other policy changes to work. A question of funding Funding matters alongside recognition. The pupil premium was a genuine advance in getting more money in classrooms with pupils who need it most, but it does not reflect the difference between short-term and sustained poverty, a difference that is real and cumulative. A persistent disadvantage top-up would begin to fund the kind of consistent, stable school environments that these children need. The fragmentation of our young people’s outcomes is the predictable consequence of uneven investment and a system that has not paid enough attention to sustained poverty. That can change. The first step is recognising persistent disadvantage, adopting a clear definition and tracking the outcomes of this group. Next, we must target funding and support towards the schools and communities serving these pupils. With the right focus, every part of England can offer children growing up in long-term poverty the opportunities that too often remain determined by postcode today.
Kevin. Morris 17 June 2026 James Toop’s article raises an important issue, but I am not convinced it gets to the heart of the problem. The identification of “persistent disadvantage” is undoubtedly useful. Anyone who has worked in schools serving disadvantaged communities understands instinctively that there is a profound difference between temporary hardship and a childhood lived largely in poverty. The distinction deserves greater recognition in policy and funding. What struck me, however, was a different question. After more than twenty years of Teach First, the London Challenge, Excellence in Cities, academisation, the Pupil Premium and countless other interventions designed to narrow attainment gaps, why are we still describing large numbers of young people as being years behind their peers? That is not a criticism of Teach First. The organisation has recruited and developed many talented teachers and leaders who have transformed outcomes and changed lives. Nor is it a criticism of schools. Across the country, school leaders and teachers work tirelessly and often heroically in circumstances that become more challenging each year. The question is whether we have gradually come to expect schools to solve problems that originate far beyond the school gate. Schools can provide excellent teaching, strong pastoral care, stability, aspiration and opportunity. They can and do mitigate disadvantage. But can they eliminate the effects of insecure housing, declining local economies, poor health outcomes, family poverty, social fragmentation and widening inequality? The article points to London as evidence that things can be different. There is truth in that. The London Challenge remains one of the most successful school improvement initiatives of recent decades. Yet London’s success was not solely the product of better schools. It coincided with significant public investment, economic growth, demographic change, strong parental aspirations and a labour market that offered tangible opportunities to young people. We should therefore be careful about assuming that the London model can simply be transplanted into every coastal town or post-industrial community. I sometimes wonder whether educational solutions have become attractive precisely because they are politically manageable. It is easier to recruit teachers than to rebuild communities. Easier to reform accountability systems than housing policy. Easier to measure GCSE outcomes than childhood insecurity. The risk is that we continue to interpret educational inequality as a failure of schools rather than as evidence of deeper social and economic inequalities. Persistent disadvantage should certainly be recognised and tracked more carefully. Additional funding may well be justified. But neither addresses the more fundamental issue. Perhaps the most uncomfortable conclusion is that after two decades of educational reform, we have learned that schools can mitigate disadvantage far more effectively than they can eliminate it. The real question is not why some children fall behind. It is why, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, so many children still arrive at school carrying such unequal burdens in the first place.
Maggie Atkinson 18 June 2026 I welcome both the article and the reflections on it above. I return – bluntly I’m afraid having been saying this for close to 30 years – to the contention that had any other region had the money per head of pupil population of even outer London schools, OR the investment in meaningful lucrative employment, OR the funding of rich & varied cultural transport & other infrastructure – all of them in the gift of central not local government – for decades (and decades and decades) we might be looking at far narrower class, educational & social gaps than we are now. As a former DCS who worked in the North West, North East, Midlands & Yorshire, I’d say the gaps start with who gets the money. Which is not to say take from London & give elsewhere. It IS to say if things like free transport up to 18 years old, FSM throughout primary years, super-numerary teachers, access to things schools elsewhere could only ever dream of, are good enough for London, that should also be your benchmark for EVERYWHERE.