This research project explored how schools report using their Pupil Premium funding by analysing a sample of Pupil Premium strategy statements. The EEF commissioned Verian to conduct this project over two academic years.
This page covers the second cycle, which analysed strategy statements for the 2025/26 academic year. The first cycle explored statements for the 2024/25 academic year.
The Pupil Premium grant is additional government funding provided to state-funded schools in England to improve educational outcomes for disadvantaged pupils.
Each year, schools are required to publish a Pupil Premium strategy statement on their website. These statements set out how schools plan to use their funding to support disadvantaged pupils. They provide a valuable source of information about schools’ reported approaches to using Pupil Premium funding.
The findings from this analysis will inform the EEF’s work, including its guidance to schools on how to use Pupil Premium funding effectively. They will also help the EEF and policymakers better understand how schools use their Pupil Premium funding.
- What challenges do schools identify for their disadvantaged pupils?
- The most frequently cited challenges were English and/or literacy attainment (91%), attendance (83%), and social, emotional, and mental health and wellbeing (79%).
Note: the asterisk beside ‘Attainment: general or not subject specific’ indicates that the inter-coder reliability for this code was low – humans and AI only agreed in 66% of cases. This finding should therefore be treated with caution.
- The challenges schools identified varied depending on their characteristics. For example, primary schools were more likely to identify English and/or literacy attainment, and social, emotional and mental health and wellbeing, while secondary schools were more likely to identify attendance and behaviour.
- Schools with higher proportions of disadvantaged pupils were more likely to identify attendance, English and/or literacy attainment and general attainment as challenges than schools with a lower proportion of disadvantaged pupils.
- There was some regional variation. Schools in the North East were most likely to identify local factors, including issues such as transport and housing.
- How does schools’ reported spending align with the EEF’s tiered approach?
- The majority of schools structured their spending around the EEF’s three-tiered approach, allocating more of their budget to high-quality teaching (38%), and targeted academic support (35%), than wider strategies (28%).
- Primary schools reported allocating more budget towards academic support (37%) than secondary schools (28%).
- Which approaches do schools report funding using their Pupil Premium grant?
- Schools most commonly reported funding tuition (98%) [1], targeted English and/or literacy interventions (97%), and staff training and continuous professional development (92%).
Note: the asterisks indicate that inter-coder reliability for pastoral support and other targeted academic intervention was low (61% and 29%) so this finding should be treated with caution.
- Secondary schools were more likely to report funding attendance interventions.
- Schools with higher proportions of disadvantaged pupils were more likely to report funding maths and numeracy interventions and approaches to supporting pupils with SEND than schools with lower proportions of disadvantaged pupils.
- There was some regional variation, with schools in London being most likely to report allocating funds towards interventions to support pupils with English as an Additional Language.
- How do schools’ approaches to spending align with their identified challenges?
- Schools’ spending generally reflected the challenges they identified. However, in some areas, schools reported investing in targeted approaches more frequently than they identified the issue as a challenge.
- For example, 79% of schools identified social, emotional and mental health and wellbeing as a challenge, while 92% of schools reported funding interventions in this area.
- Similarly, 53% of schools cited attainment in maths and numeracy attainment as a challenge, while 79% reported funding targeted interventions in this area.
- Which external programmes do schools report funding?
- 70% of schools reported funding at least one external programme [2]. The most frequently cited programmes included Emotional Literacy Support Assistant (ELSA), Little Wandle and Lexia.
- Nearly 1 in 5 schools reported funding at least one EEF Promising Programme. The most frequently cited were the Nuffield Early Language Intervention and Mathematics Mastery.
- What types of evidence do schools cite in their Pupil Premium statements?
- EEF evidence was the most commonly cited source, with 93% of schools referencing EEF evidence in their Pupil Premium statements. This was followed by schools’ own data and evidence from the Department for Education.
- The Teaching and Learning Toolkit was the most frequently cited EEF resource, referenced by 81% of schools, followed by EEF guidance reports, cited by 73%.
Note: the asterisk indicates that inter-coder reliability for school data was low (61%), so this finding should be treated with caution.
Footnotes
[1] The ‘tuition’ code did not only include explicit references to tuition. Phrases such as ‘individualised instruction’ and ‘using small groups’ were also captured under this code. It is therefore likely to include some overlap with targeted interventions (see report for detail).
[2] Verian defined programmes as any programme, tool or resource a school can purchase to support their activities. Findings on programmes cited should not be taken as an endorsement