Tomorrow's Spending Review should explain whether the government will use cuts in welfare, specifically from child benefit, to fund the bulk of the pupil premium - thereby protecting to some extent the Department of Education's non-school budget - or whether those savings will be used to fund a new work programme for the unemployed, leaving the DfE to finance most of the pupil premium through 'non-essential' budgets.
The chancellor has made it clear that if extra savings can be made on welfare benefits, this funding can be used to support the key priorities of the coalition government. High on the list of priorities is the pupil premium although there is stiff competition from defence and welfare to work.
Unsurprisingly, universal benefits - including non-means tested child benefit - have come under the spotlight. Currently, child benefit is paid to all parents with children from birth to the end of compulsory education (£10.3bn) and 16-19 year olds in full-time further education (£1.5bn). Speculation is mounting that, in addition to the restrictions already trailed, the government will abolish or severely restrict post-compulsory 16-19 child benefit, thereby freeing-up funding for the pre-16 pupil premium.
Indeed, there is an unanswerable case for cutting back the cost of 16-19 child benefit. 16-19 year olds from wealthy families stay on anyway, tend to achieve good A levels and then enter university. At present, parents with 16-19 year olds in private sixth forms also receive child benefit and they are more likely to enter our elite universities than children in state sixth forms. The result is high levels of deadweight and entrenched social immobility.
Unquestionably, the coalition should scale back 16-19 child benefit. One option would be to means-test it. Another option would be to abolish 16-19 child benefit altogether and provide compensating payments to poorer families through means-tested child tax credits. More radically, the remnants of 16-19 child benefit alongside child tax credit could be transferred to those receiving Education Maintenance Allowance to create a 16-19 Youth Allowance. Under this option, all 16-19 financial support would be in the hands of students. Indeed, with significant funding in their hands, albeit conditional upon attending school or college, more young people from poorer backgrounds could stay on post-16.
Yet, the critical question is whether savings in 16-19 child benefit should be used to fund a pre-16 pupil premium. Surely, the savings are needed to reduce the number of young people ‘not in education, employment and training’ (NEET). 16-19 funding should be for 16-19 year olds. It is clearly unfair to prioritise today’s 4-15 year olds in favour of today’s 16-19 year olds given the challenging economic circumstances they face.
The pre-16 pupil premium should be funded from 0-16 funding. More specifically, the pre-16 pupil premium should be funded through means-testing 0-16 child benefit. Nothing would symbolise fairness more than taking child benefit away from wealthier families to pay for extra support for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Mark Corney is author of Funding the Pupil Premium: Fairness for Young People and Parents published by CfBT Education Trust www.cfbt.com
