There is a significant shift coming in how disadvantage is identified and funded in schools.
On paper, it looks like progress:
More pupils identified as disadvantaged
A broader definition of need
A move towards more targeted funding
But beneath the headlines, something more fundamental is happening.
The system is starting to move away from the simple model we’ve relied on for over a decade.
And that raises an important question:
Will these changes actually improve outcomes or just change how we measure the problem?
1. The expansion of Free School Meals: a bigger net
From September 2026, eligibility for free school meals (FSM) is set to expand significantly, marking one of the most substantial changes in how disadvantage is identified within the education system in recent years. Under the current system, families must earn £7,400 or less, excluding benefits, to qualify through Universal Credit. This threshold will be removed entirely. In its place, a broader and more inclusive criterion will be introduced. All pupils in households receiving Universal Credit will become eligible for free school meals. As a result, the government estimates that more than 500,000 additional pupils will qualify.
At first glance, this appears to be a positive development. For a long time, FSM eligibility has functioned as the main proxy for identifying disadvantaged pupils. It influences not only access to meals but also how funding, particularly the Pupil Premium, is allocated. However, it has always been a relatively blunt instrument. The £7,400 threshold created a rigid cut-off point that did not reflect the lived reality of many families. Those earning just above the threshold were often excluded despite facing similar financial pressures. Others moved in and out of eligibility as their circumstances changed.
In addition, the system has relied heavily on parents applying for FSM. This introduces further inconsistency. Some families do not apply because they are unaware, concerned about stigma, or face administrative barriers. As a result, eligibility, and therefore funding, has not always accurately reflected need. More importantly, FSM has never fully captured the complexity of disadvantage. Financial hardship is only one part of a much wider picture. Factors such as housing instability, parental education, access to resources, and long-term socio-economic conditions all shape a pupil’s experience. These are not easily measured through a single eligibility rule.
In this context, expanding FSM eligibility represents more than a simple policy adjustment. It signals a shift in how disadvantage is understood. By removing the income threshold and extending eligibility to all Universal Credit recipients, the system begins to recognise that disadvantage is not limited to a narrow group. Instead, it exists across a broader range of pupils than previously acknowledged.
In principle, this is a step forward. It moves the system towards a more realistic and inclusive understanding of need. It also has the potential to ensure that more pupils receive both the immediate support of free school meals and the longer-term benefits linked to additional funding and targeted provision.
Ultimately, this change reflects an important recognition:
Disadvantage is broader, more complex, and more widespread than the current system has traditionally captured.
But here’s the issue
Expanding identification does not automatically lead to improved outcomes.
While broadening eligibility is an important step, it only addresses one part of the issue. Identifying disadvantage more accurately ensures that more pupils are recognised within the system, but recognition alone does not change their day-to-day experience in school. It does not, by itself, improve teaching, close gaps in literacy, or raise attainment.
In many ways, identification is simply the starting point. It tells us who may need additional support, but it does not determine how effectively that support is delivered. Without a clear and consistent response at classroom level, the impact of any policy change is likely to be limited.
This is the critical distinction that is often overlooked. Expanding the definition of disadvantage may increase the number of pupils eligible for support, but unless schools adapt how they respond to that need, outcomes will not shift in any meaningful way.
What matters is what happens next.
2. The critical gap: FSM is changing, but funding isn’t (yet)
This is where the picture becomes more complicated, and where misunderstandings are likely to arise.
While eligibility for free school meals is expanding, the funding system that sits alongside it is not changing at the same pace. For now, Pupil Premium allocations will continue to be based on the existing criteria rather than the broader definition of disadvantage introduced through Universal Credit eligibility.
In practical terms, this creates a clear tension within the system. A greater number of pupils will be recognised as disadvantaged, which is a positive step in terms of identification. However, schools will not immediately receive additional funding to match this increase. The result is that the group of pupils identified as needing support grows, while the resources available to support them do not expand in line with that need.
This creates a disconnect that schools will have to navigate carefully. On one hand, there is a broader and more accurate recognition of disadvantage. On the other, there remains a funding model that reflects an older, narrower definition. This means that leaders are likely to face more complex decisions about prioritisation, allocation of resources, and how best to support a widening group of pupils within existing constraints.
In effect, the system moves into a position where identification expands, but funding does not keep pace.
Why this matters
For schools, this change raises a set of immediate and practical questions.
If more pupils are identified as disadvantaged, but funding does not increase proportionally, then leaders are faced with a difficult reality. They must consider how to support a larger group of pupils using the same level of resource. This inevitably leads to questions around prioritisation. Which pupils require the most support? How should that support be allocated? And how can schools ensure that provision remains consistent across classes and year groups when the pressure on resources increases?
These are not straightforward decisions. They affect curriculum planning, intervention strategies, staffing, and day-to-day classroom practice. There is also the challenge of maintaining fairness and clarity, both for staff and for pupils, when the definition of disadvantage becomes broader but the support available does not expand in the same way.
This is not just a technical issue about funding formulas or eligibility criteria. It is a strategic challenge for school leaders.
It requires a shift in thinking. The question can no longer be framed simply as who qualifies for funding. Instead, it becomes a deeper and more complex consideration of who actually needs support, what that support should look like, and how it can be delivered effectively within the constraints that schools face.
3. The beginning of a bigger shift: moving beyond FSM
These changes signal something more significant than a simple expansion of eligibility.
For many years, free school meals have been the central mechanism for identifying disadvantage within the education system. They have acted as the primary proxy for need, shaping not only access to support but also how funding is distributed and how schools track and report outcomes.
However, policymakers are increasingly recognising the limitations of relying on FSM as the main indicator. As discussed earlier, it is a blunt measure. It depends on thresholds, applications, and administrative processes that do not always reflect the full reality of pupils’ circumstances.
As a result, the direction of travel is becoming clearer.
There is a gradual move towards more nuanced and precise measures of disadvantage.
This includes greater use of income data to provide a more accurate picture of household circumstances, rather than relying on a single eligibility cut-off. It also involves increased attention to long-term or “persistent” disadvantage, recognising that the duration of disadvantage can have a significant impact on outcomes. In addition, there is a shift away from administrative triggers such as FSM registration, which can be inconsistent and incomplete, towards systems that capture need more reliably.
Taken together, these developments suggest a broader change in how disadvantage is understood and measured. Rather than relying on a single proxy, the system is beginning to move towards a more layered and detailed approach.
For schools, this signals that the way disadvantage is identified, tracked, and responded to is likely to become more complex, but also potentially more accurate.
Why this matters
This is not simply a policy adjustment. It represents a deeper shift in how the system understands and defines disadvantage.
For years, schools have worked within a relatively clear framework. Disadvantage has largely been identified through FSM eligibility and reflected in funding labels. While imperfect, this provided a shared reference point for tracking pupils and allocating support.
As that framework begins to change, so too does the expectation placed on schools.
Because the question is no longer just about which pupils meet a particular threshold or qualify for funding. Instead, it becomes a more complex and contextual consideration:
What does disadvantage actually look like in your school?
This requires moving beyond labels and looking more closely at the barriers pupils face in practice. For some, this may be most visible through gaps in literacy, particularly in their ability to access subject-specific language and express ideas in writing. For others, it may relate to limited cultural capital, where pupils have had fewer opportunities to engage with the kinds of knowledge and experiences that schools assume. There are also issues around access to academic language, where pupils may understand concepts but struggle to articulate them in the way assessments require. In many cases, disadvantage is long-term, shaped by sustained socio-economic factors that affect confidence, aspiration, and engagement over time.
What this shift does is place greater responsibility on schools to interpret disadvantage more carefully and respond more precisely. It moves the focus away from simply identifying who qualifies, and towards understanding what those pupils actually need in order to succeed.
4. Reforming how funding is distributed
Alongside changes to how disadvantage is identified, there are also emerging plans to reform how funding is allocated across the system. This reflects a growing recognition that the current approach, while well-intentioned, does not always direct resources with enough precision.
Several potential changes have been outlined. These include the introduction of a stepped funding model, where the amount of funding a school receives varies depending on the level of need within its pupil population. There is also likely to be greater weighting given to persistent disadvantage, acknowledging that pupils who experience long-term socio-economic challenges often require more sustained support. In addition, geographical factors may play a larger role, with funding adjusted to reflect regional differences in need and cost. Alongside this, there is an increasing emphasis on evidence-based spending, with schools expected to demonstrate that funding is being used in ways that are known to have impact.
At a system level, these proposals are logical. The current model has a clear limitation in that it does not sufficiently differentiate between different types of disadvantage. As a result, schools with very different contexts can receive similar levels of funding.
For example, a school serving a community with deeply entrenched, long-term disadvantage may receive funding that is not significantly different from a school where disadvantage is more transient or less severe. While both require support, the nature and scale of need are not the same.
This lack of differentiation creates challenges. It can dilute the impact of funding and make it harder to target resources effectively. The proposed reforms aim to address this by creating a more responsive system, one that recognises not just whether disadvantage exists, but the extent and persistence of that disadvantage.
If implemented effectively, this could lead to a more precise allocation of resources. However, it also introduces additional complexity, both in how funding is calculated and in how schools respond to it.
The intended solution
The logic behind these reforms is clear.
Target funding more precisely.
In theory, this should lead to a more effective system. If funding is better aligned with need, then resources can be directed towards the pupils and schools that require the greatest level of support. This should improve overall efficiency, ensuring that funding is not spread too thinly or allocated in ways that do not reflect actual levels of disadvantage. It also has the potential to reduce waste, particularly in cases where funding is not closely matched to the scale or persistence of need.
On paper, this represents a more intelligent approach. Rather than treating disadvantage as a fixed category, the system becomes more responsive, adjusting funding based on context and depth of need. If implemented well, this could allow schools to provide more targeted and sustained support where it is most required.
But there is a risk
However, there is an important caution to consider.
Greater complexity in funding models does not automatically lead to better outcomes.
There is a tendency in policy to assume that refining systems, adding layers of detail, or increasing precision will naturally improve results. In reality, the challenges schools face are rarely caused by a lack of complexity in how funding is allocated.
Schools do not struggle because the funding model is too simple.
They struggle because:
– time is limited
– capacity is stretched
– implementation is difficult
Even the most well-designed funding system still relies on schools to translate that funding into effective practice. This requires time, expertise, and consistency, all of which are finite. As funding models become more complex, the demands on leaders also increase. They must interpret the system, make strategic decisions, and ensure that resources are used effectively, often within already stretched conditions.
This creates a potential tension.
A more sophisticated funding model may improve targeting at a system level, but it does not remove the practical challenges of implementation at school level. Without the capacity to act on that funding effectively, the impact may remain limited.
In this sense, the success of any reform will depend not just on how funding is distributed, but on how realistically it can be translated into meaningful changes in classrooms.
5. The scale of the system and the persistence of the problem
It is worth stepping back and looking at the bigger picture.
Across the education system, total deprivation funding is estimated at around £8 billion. This includes the Pupil Premium as well as other funding streams designed to support disadvantaged pupils. By any measure, this represents a significant level of investment. It reflects a sustained commitment at national level to addressing educational inequality.
And yet, despite this, the core issue remains.
The attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers is still described as “stubbornly high”.
While there have been periods where the overall gap has narrowed slightly, this progress has not been consistent or sustained. More importantly, the gap for pupils who experience long-term or persistent disadvantage has remained deeply entrenched. These are the pupils for whom the system has struggled most to make a lasting difference.
This creates a tension that is difficult to ignore.
On one hand, there is substantial funding and clear policy focus. On the other, there is a persistent gap that resists closure.
What this tells us
This suggests that the issue cannot be understood as a funding problem alone.
If it were simply a matter of investment, then £8 billion should have had a far more decisive impact. The scale of funding would be expected to produce more consistent and sustained improvements across the system.
The fact that it has not points to something deeper.
The challenge lies in how that funding translates into the day-to-day experience of pupils in classrooms.
Funding can create opportunities. It can provide resources, staffing, and support structures. But it does not determine how effectively those are used. It does not guarantee high-quality teaching, strong curriculum design, or consistent expectations.
In other words, the presence of funding does not automatically lead to impact.
The variation in outcomes across schools suggests that what happens after funding is allocated matters far more than the funding itself. The key question is not simply how much is spent, but how that spending is translated into practice, and whether it meaningfully improves what pupils experience every lesson.
This is where the real challenge lies.
6. What this means for schools (right now)
These changes are still developing, and the full detail of implementation is yet to be confirmed. However, there are already clear implications for schools based on the direction of travel.
A. Identification will become less straightforward
For many years, FSM eligibility has provided a relatively simple way of identifying disadvantaged pupils. While imperfect, it offered a clear and widely understood marker that schools could use to track outcomes and allocate support.
As the system begins to move beyond FSM as the primary proxy, that simplicity is likely to disappear.
Schools will need to think more carefully about what disadvantage looks like within their own context. This means moving beyond labels and developing a deeper understanding of the barriers their pupils face. It requires looking not just at eligibility, but at patterns in attainment, gaps in literacy, levels of access to academic language, and the wider factors that influence learning over time.
In practice, this makes identification more complex, but also potentially more accurate. It places greater emphasis on professional judgement and on the ability of schools to interpret their own data and context effectively.
B. Funding may become more targeted and less predictable
As funding becomes more closely aligned with levels of need, duration of disadvantage, and local context, it is likely to become both more precise and less predictable.
Some schools, particularly those serving communities with high levels of persistent disadvantage, may benefit from increased or more targeted funding. Others may find that their allocation becomes tighter, particularly if their pupil profile changes or if funding is redistributed to reflect different priorities.
This creates a more uncertain environment for leaders.
In response, the importance of strategic planning increases significantly. Schools will need to be clear about their priorities, ensure that resources are allocated effectively, and be able to adapt as funding models evolve. There will be less room for general or unfocused approaches, and a greater need for clarity about what is being prioritised and why.
C. Accountability will increase
Alongside changes to identification and funding, there is likely to be a stronger emphasis on accountability.
As funding becomes more targeted, there will be greater scrutiny of how it is used. Schools can expect increased focus on evidence-based approaches, with a growing expectation that spending decisions are informed by research and linked to measurable impact.
This may involve more detailed reporting on how Pupil Premium funding is allocated and what outcomes it is producing. There is also the possibility of greater external oversight, including reviews of Pupil Premium strategies and their effectiveness.
For schools, this means that it will no longer be sufficient to demonstrate that funding is being spent. There will be an increasing expectation to demonstrate that it is being spent well, and that it is making a tangible difference to pupil outcomes.
Taken together, these changes suggest a shift towards a more complex but also more demanding system. Schools will need to navigate greater nuance in identifying disadvantage, greater uncertainty in funding, and greater scrutiny in how that funding is used.
7. The uncomfortable truth
There is a risk in all of this.
As the system becomes more complex, there is a danger that attention shifts too heavily towards the mechanics of policy rather than its impact. Schools and leaders may find themselves focusing on eligibility criteria, funding mechanisms, and the detail of system design. These are all important, and they shape the conditions within which schools operate.
However, there is a risk that in focusing too closely on these elements, we lose sight of the core issue.
Because the biggest barrier has never been identifying disadvantage.
That has always been only part of the challenge.
The more significant issue has been how effectively that disadvantage is addressed once it has been identified. Recognition alone does not change outcomes. It does not close gaps in attainment or improve access to the curriculum. What matters is the response that follows, and that response is ultimately delivered in classrooms.
The central challenge is not identifying disadvantage.
It is addressing it effectively through teaching and learning.
Final reflection
These reforms matter.
They will influence how schools are funded, how disadvantage is defined, and how accountability is applied across the system. They will shape the environment in which schools operate and the expectations placed upon them.
However, they do not provide a solution on their own.
No matter how refined the funding model becomes, it cannot improve outcomes in isolation. Funding can support change, but it does not determine whether that change is successful. The impact depends on how it is used and how it translates into everyday practice.
What ultimately makes the difference is much more consistent and much more localised. It is the quality of teaching that pupils experience, the structure and coherence of the curriculum they follow, and the consistency of expectations across lessons and year groups. It is also the deliberate and sustained focus on literacy and access, ensuring that all pupils can engage with the language and demands of the subject.
If anything, this raises the stakes.
If funding becomes more targeted, then the responsibility placed on schools increases.
Greater precision in funding means greater expectation of impact. It places more emphasis on how decisions are made and how effectively resources are used. In this context, what schools do with the funding they receive becomes even more important.
Bottom line
The Pupil Premium is not disappearing.
But it is evolving.
As it does, schools are faced with a choice.
They can focus primarily on understanding and navigating the system, responding to changes in eligibility, funding, and accountability. Or they can focus on improving what happens in classrooms, ensuring that every lesson contributes to closing the gap.
In the end, the distinction is clear.
You do not close the attainment gap through funding alone. You close it through what happens in the classroom.
Join educators across the UK receiving weekly evidence-informed reflections from The Teachers’ Lyceum.
©️ Teachers’ Lyceum. 2026.