Addressing educational poverty

• By Pam Tatlow, Policy Adviser to the Cathedrals Group of Universities

The Government’s decision to extend free school meals to an estimated 500,000 primary school children is a win-win, both in addressing disadvantage and supporting learning and attainment. In fact, all primary-age school children in Scotland and London now receive free school meals, with an evaluation of the latter concluding that its impact was overwhelmingly positive and that for some children, school attendance and mental well-being had also been improved.

It’s clear that free school meals are a worthwhile investment of Department of Education resources. It is also why Ministers should maximise take-up in England by linking auto-enrolment of Free Schools Meals with universal credit and pupil premium.

But why should universities care about Free School Meals? The answer is quite simple, especially if, like the Cathedrals Group of Universities, you recruit students who progress to university later in life. In some universities, many students are parents and carers in their own right who will undoubtedly benefit from widening the eligibility for free school meals. It’s a policy that has inter-generational impact as well as positive impacts on the children of today.  

Moreover, rising levels of inequality as documented by the OECD, the IMF, the World Bank and in the UK by Danny Dorling, Professor of Human Geography at the University of Oxford, constrain not only economic growth (an objective of Rachel Reeves, Chancellor of the Exchequer) but also educational attainment – a fact not lost on Professor Becky Francis, Chair of the government’s Curriculum and Assessment review who concluded in 2015 ‘that all the data supports the idea that the socioeconomic divide is the biggest issue in education’. While diverse in size, Cathedrals Group Universities continue to play a key role in educating the teachers of the future, but crucially are also united by a commitment to social justice – and this means a continuing interest in measures that address inequality.

The June Spending Review was notable for its silence on other measures which might directly support educational attainment beyond the primary stage. There is still time for Ministers to recognise that supporting pupils and students during their studies is an investment in their futures that will pay dividends in terms of monetised and non-monetised benefits for individuals, communities and ultimately the Treasury itself.

At the secondary phase, Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) was a weekly payment to disadvantaged young people aged 16-19 in full-time education. Introduced in 1999, expanded nationwide in 2004, the EMA was abolished by the Coalition Government in England in October 2010, with the 2010/11 academic year marking the final year of the scheme. Replaced by a 16-19 Bursary Fund that continues today, the Fund has a significantly reduced budget and, other than for the most disadvantaged and vulnerable young people, is administered at the discretion of colleges and training providers, which decide their own schemes.

The difference between this Fund and the EMA is stark. EMA provided direct payments to young people for which they could apply before opting for a specific post-16 education course or institution. As shown by its continuation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the EMA remains a popular policy with young people (who were not consulted about its abolition in England). Research by the Edge Foundation confirmed that the EMA had a positive impact on post-16 education participation and retention rates among young people from lower-income families and those with disabilities. Although the school leaving age has been increased to 18 for over a decade, there are often costs associated with post-16 study, such as specialist equipment and transport, for which young people get little support. What does exist in England is discretionary and dependent on a postcode lottery.

Then there’s higher education, which by common agreement needs a new funding model in England and, in the view of the Cathedrals Group, more direct government investment. Investment in universities and investment to address the hardship of students are two sides of the same coin. If maintenance support for students is increased by inflation, it will be welcome but not enough. London Economics research for the Sutton Trust in 2024 confirmed that the abolition of maintenance grants (which did not have to be repaid) has resulted in students from the poorest families incurring the highest debts during their studies. Moreover, parental income thresholds, which determine when parents are expected to contribute to the living costs of their children at university, have remained frozen at £25,000 pa. The same research estimated that in real terms, household income thresholds should have increased to £32,535 and that students from poorer households could graduate with over £60,000 of debt, 38% higher than those from wealthier families.

Universities know only too well about educational poverty. Notwithstanding the pressures on institutional funding, many have increased their hardship funds. In spite of their best efforts, including money advice, demand from students for financial support outstrips budgets. Hepi and Advance HE’s 2025 Student Experience Survey confirms that cost-of-living concerns have impacted on students’ studies but also the extent to which students now combine study and paid employment with the average total of study and workload hours for students who work standing at 44.3 hours a week – ‘higher than the average full-time job in the UK’.

And to end where we began: in Finland, there are no free school meals because the provision of free meals is an integral part of the Finnish education system – the same system which is consistently ranked first among all OECD countries in education and in terms of the outcomes and well-being of its pupils and students. Only the Treasury can now help square the circle and address educational poverty of pupils, students and their families at every stage of their educational journey. Such a strategy would not only support the government’s stated ambition to tackle inequality but also Ministers’ aspiration to improve educational attainment – a win all round.