EPI’s written evidence to the House of Commons Education Committee on the ‘Every Child Achieving and Thriving’ white paper, submitted in July 2026.
Following this written submission, EPI Chief Executive Julie McCulloch appeared before the Education Committee to give oral evidence on the white paper, alongside Alun Francis OBE of the Social Mobility Commission, Dave Thomson of FFT Education Datalab and Daniel Lilley of the Centre for Social Justice.
A. Introduction
1. The Education Policy Institute (EPI) is an independent, impartial, and evidence-based research institute which promotes high-quality education outcomes, regardless of social background. We achieve this through data-led analysis, innovative research and high-profile events.
2. EPI welcomes the opportunity to submit a response to this call for evidence.
B. Raising attainment
The Government’s ambition to raise attainment, including reducing the disadvantage gap
3. EPI strongly welcomes the Government’s dual ambitions to increase attainment and halve the disadvantage gap.
4. Our recently published annual report shows that disadvantage gaps remain wider than before the pandemic at every stage, and that recent recovery has stalled or reversed. Between 2024 and 2025, gaps widened in the early years and at KS4 and remained unchanged at KS2.
5. Without careful policy design, there is a danger that these two ambitions can be in competition, as hitting attainment targets based on average increases can most easily be achieved by improvements among the least disadvantaged cohorts. The key question is whether the reforms set out in the white paper are sufficient, and sufficiently well-designed, to achieve both targets. We set out our thoughts on this in Section F below.
The proposed reforms to accountability measures, including Progress 8, Attainment 8, and new measures for low and high attainers
6. We have broadly welcomed the move to recognise breadth within school performance measures, in particular the inclusion of creative subjects.
7. We agree that Progress 8 should allow technical awards in the breadth and choice slots. Our view is that this should go further, with performance measures recognising a wider set of qualifications more generally.
8. We agree with the introduction of an additional measure for pupils with low prior attainment, which may provide overdue recognition for schools admitting a higher proportion of these learners, including those with SEND. It is important that this measure includes qualifications beneficial to learners with different needs.
9. We have several concerns with the proposed approach to EAL learners, which we can explain if requested.
10. The new school profiles are an opportunity to provide a more rounded understanding of school performance. However, the proposed measures to be included look somewhat limited. Our benchmarking tool for multi-academy trusts and local authorities, which includes measures of inclusion, workforce and finances, could provide a blueprint for a wider set of metrics in the profile.
Whether changes to accountability measures will support a broad and balanced curriculum
11. Accountability measures play an important role in determining what schools teach. However, providing a broad and balanced curriculum requires both sufficient funding and a teaching workforce with relevant specialisms. Both of these have become increasingly challenging over the last decade. Predicted falls in pupil numbers are likely to make it even more difficult for schools to afford to offer a broad curriculum.
12. It is also essential that the qualifications which count in accountability measures include those suitable for children with a wide range of SEND, which is currently not the case. We explain more in this analysis.
13. If schools are expected to introduce more technical education under the reforms proposed by the new Prime Minister, it will be important to ensure accountability measures align with these new expectations, and that these are carefully designed to minimise perverse incentives to enter young people for qualifications that may not be in their best interests.
How essential skills can be more effectively integrated into the curriculum in order to raise attainment and reduce the number of young people not in education, employment or training (NEET)
14. Reducing the number of young people who are NEET, as the interim report of the Milburn review into young people and work has set out so clearly, is a highly complex issue, with myriad interconnected challenges across the labour market, education, health and welfare.
15. In education, while essential skills can play a role, there are much wider questions about the relationship between the curriculum and NEET rates. For older students, clear progression routes are crucial. Our recent annual report highlighted a concerning participation gap in post-16 education. Nearly one-in-four students from low–income backgrounds do not go on to post-16 education or training, compared with one-in-ten other students. This gap has been widening and is particularly acute for those living in persistent poverty.
16. The Prime Minister’s proposed changes to the education system, including greater opportunities for young people to undertake technical education from age 14, are clearly highly pertinent to this question.
17. It is important that any changes to the curriculum enhance rather than undermine what is already working, and are mindful of potential unintended consequences. There is a risk that, if implemented poorly, an over-focus on a curriculum to meet the needs of the local economy, and on greater student choice below the age of 16, could have the opposite effect on social mobility from the one intended.
18. Finally, it is important to recognise that curriculum change at the scale now being proposed will require significant investment, both in the workforce required to deliver technical education to more (and younger) students, and in the wider support that disadvantaged children and young people will continue to require, whatever pathway they follow.
19. On the latter, it is EPI’s long-standing position that the pupil premium should be extended to age 18, to ensure disadvantaged young people can be better supported at the crucial 16-18 transition point, to narrow the participation gap, and to reduce the numbers who go on to be NEET.
C. Improving attendance
The Government’s target to reduce overall absence and increase total days attended
20. We welcome an attendance target framed around total days attended rather than just persistent absence thresholds. Recent EPI research has shown the importance of raising attendance – not only in its own right but as an integral part of a credible disadvantage gap strategy. Absence contributes around one-fifth (21%) of the KS2 gap, rising to one-third (34%) by KS4. Crucially, even moderate absence is associated with lower attainment.
21. Our research has found disadvantaged pupils are both more likely to be absent and experience a greater attainment penalty when they are.
22. We recommend a national target is accompanied with targeted support and monitoring of disadvantaged pupils’ absence. Support should include addressing unmet SEND provision, improving student mental health and belonging at school, and prioritising targeted funding for the most disadvantaged students.
The reasons for persistent absence, particularly among disadvantaged pupils, and whether the white paper’s proposals address those reasons adequately
23. The rates of persistent absence remain worryingly high. Our view is that the proposals in the white paper do not adequately address the reasons driving this trend.
24. We are not convinced that the currently proposed changes to curriculum and assessment will go far enough to increase engagement and address the concerning levels of stress, self-esteem and mental health of children who struggle academically.
25. The crisis in children’s mental health also needs to be tackled directly, with greater NHS resources for supporting moderate and high levels of need.
How responsibility for improving attendance should be shared between schools, families and local services
26. Schools can make a significant difference to attendance. Their overall absence rate contributes to the disadvantage gap over and above pupils’ own absence, suggesting school environment, workforce capacity and leadership shape the systems, expectations and relationships that underpin pupils’ engagement.
27. However, absence is often symptomatic of other barriers, which means that approaches focused solely on school accountability or family enforcement are likely to be ineffective and potentially counterproductive.
28. Recent EPI analysis of data on absence fines indicates there is a ‘postcode lottery’, with significant differences in local authorities’ reliance on fines.
29. An effective response requires schools, families and local services to act on the underlying causes together. We have previously made the case for using persistent absence, repeated school moves and suspensions as automatic triggers for assessing children with SEND during primary school, which would formalise the link between attendance monitoring in schools and the multi-agency support, health, social care and children’s services that many persistently absent pupils require.
30. Importantly, we find that when children with SEND receive timely identification and sustained support, their attainment can be at least as good as similar peers.
D. Moving to a trust-led school system
The expectation that all state-funded schools should join or form a school trust, and its implications for school autonomy, governance, choice and accountability
31. Multiple studies (including ours) have found either limited or no effects of academisation in itself on pupil attainment at a system level.
32. However, over the last decade the role of multi-academy trusts in connecting and supporting schools has become increasingly embedded, with trusts taking on significant responsibility for school improvement.
33. There remain, however, many schools, particularly primary schools, which are not part of trusts, and whose support largely comes from shrinking local authority school improvement services.
34. In addition, the cost involved in administering two parallel systems – academies and maintained schools – is significant, with no benefit to children and young people.
35. In this context, an expectation that all state-funded schools should join or form a trust does not seem unreasonable. More important is ensuring that all trusts are of a high-quality. EPI has developed a data tool on the effectiveness of multi-academy trusts and other school groups, to help inform policy and practice in this area.
36. The new Prime Minister’s interest in more devolved and regionally contextualised approaches to education raises interesting questions about how trust governance will interact with this approach, including with regard to new legislation requiring academies to follow the revised national curriculum.
E. Enrichment, belonging and behaviour
How schools can promote belonging and positive relationships, whilst also addressing bullying and discrimination
37. Safety, belonging and connection are concepts widely used in psychotherapy which address issues underpinning school engagement and self-esteem. The Government has taken steps to measure these nationally via surveys which are shedding light on important problems in the system and worrying trends over time.
38. Measurement of these concepts in individual schools can support the uncovering of safeguarding risks and the development of strategies to support better engagement, attendance and mental health.
The role of the proposed Pupil Engagement Framework in enhancing pupils’ sense of belonging and enjoyment of school
39. We welcome the introduction of the Pupil Engagement Framework. DfE should monitor national progress towards the benchmarks to understand the framework’s impact.
40. It is important that this remains a tool for reflective school improvement and not part of high-stakes accountability.
Measures to improve pupil behaviour, including schools’ approaches to suspension and exclusion
41. EPI is currently running a research project on schools’ approaches to suspension and internal exclusion. Emerging evidence suggests that a broad range of practices are in use, but they are not well monitored with national data, and they do not necessarily correlate with less escalation towards external suspension and permanent exclusion.
42. We have so far published analysis pieces on behaviour policies, internal exclusion and classroom removal. We are finding a correlation between socioeconomic disadvantage and the use of exclusionary practices for relatively minor behaviours such as uniform infractions and the accumulation of behaviour points across many low-level incidents.
43. We welcome recent Government guidance on inclusion bases, but there is more to do to ensure these genuinely function to increase inclusion and not to simply segregate challenging pupils. This includes workforce development, planning, piloting and evaluating.
F. Reducing disadvantage gaps
General points
44. Recent EPI research highlights some of the biggest contributors to the disadvantage attainment gap and provides insights into where the Government should focus in its ambition to halve the gap.
45. The single biggest contributor to the gap (from KS2) is prior attainment, highlighting the critical role of intervening early at every stage, as once disadvantaged learners fall behind, it is very hard to catch up.
46. Another key contributor to the gap is SEND. It is critical that additional needs are identified early and sustained support is put in place. This shift towards proactive support rather than diagnosis at crisis point requires investment in the workforce, including more educational psychologists, more speech and language therapists and faster access to children’s mental health services.
47. As pupils progress in their education, pupil absence plays an increasing role in the gap, contributing one-fifth of the gap at KS2 and one-third at KS4. Given that even moderate absence is associated with significantly lower GCSE attainment, this once again underscores the importance of intervening early before problems escalate and become entrenched.
48. The white paper includes proposals to address some of these factors, but not all. Additional actions evidence suggests are necessary include:
- equalising access to funding for early education and care, ensuring that all children receive the same entitlements to funded hours regardless of their family circumstances
- investing sufficiently in the workforce required to support and develop children and young people with SEND, both within and beyond school and college
- introducing a 16-19 student premium: a targeted funding entitlement for disadvantaged young people in the 16-19 phase
- introducing an enhanced pupil premium, targeted specifically at persistently disadvantaged pupils
- developing wider measures of wellbeing, belonging and engagement alongside academic outcomes, to inform future assessments of educational inequality
49. Our full set of recommendations for reducing the disadvantage gap is available here.
The proposed reforms to disadvantage funding, including the introduction of a stepped funding model and the use of household income measures
50. We have long argued for reform of the funding system, which currently makes no distinction between different levels and types of disadvantage. The attainment gap for those in persistent poverty is equivalent to nearly two years of learning, and there has been no progress in closing this gap.
51. We also welcome the move towards income measures that do not rely on the FSM indicator. There are many children in poverty who are not captured in the measure of FSM and this varies by pupil characteristics, geography and time. It is felt particularly acutely in the early years and the first years of primary school.
52. However, it is important that the income data is complete, to avoid disadvantaged children being excluded from targeted support. Any thresholds used to identify different levels of disadvantage based on income data should be regularly reviewed and adjusted in line with changes in inflation and the cost of living. Consideration should be given to area–based measures of disadvantage and the effects of housing costs.
The Government’s two new place-based approaches to tackling disadvantage: Mission North-East and Mission Coastal
53. Geography matters for disadvantage gaps, and both missions are consistent with evidence from our annual report.
54. The North–East faces a range of challenges: it had among the largest early years gaps in 2025 (5.5 months), with the sharpest increase of any region since 2019 (+1.4 months); it recorded the joint-largest 16-19 gap in the country (4.4 grades) and saw one of the biggest one-year widenings of the gap at KS2 (+4.2 months between 2024 and 2025).
55. Likewise, our evidence shows that coastal communities feature prominently among areas with the widest gaps. Targeted prioritisation of support should be closely informed by disadvantage attainment gap data. In 2025, coastal authorities with the widest gaps were Hartlepool, North Somerset, Portsmouth, North East Lincolnshire and Southampton in the 16-19 phase, and Blackpool and the Isle of Wight between the ages of 5 and 11.
56. The regional area with the widest gaps in 2025 was the South West, with the largest gap at KS2 (12.5 months), second largest at KS4 (21.3 months) and joint-largest at the 16-19 phase (4.4 grades, level with the North East). This was followed by the South East, with the largest KS4 gap in the country and some of the sharpest widening since 2019.
G. Workforce reforms
The Government’s target to recruit 6,500 additional teachers and the feasibility of meeting this commitment
57. The recent improvement in teacher supply is largely cyclical. Trainee recruitment rose 10 per cent in 2025/26, the STEM target was met for the first time, and the leaver rate fell to 9 per cent. But recruitment at the largest graduate employers fell 14.6 per cent in 2025, its steepest drop since 2009, making teaching relatively more attractive.
58. The graduate labour market is outside the government’s control and could recover, as it did when the economy reopened after the pandemic. The 6,500 pledge may well be met but that would not mean the position is secure.
59. The Government’s delivery plan says the primary goal is overall teacher stock, while investment will focus on shortage subjects and getting expert teachers into deprived areas. We support that, but the 6,500 measure will not show whether it is achieved.
60. In the most disadvantaged secondary schools, lessons taught by a relevant graduate fell from 58 to 47 per cent in a decade. In 2023/24, 34 per cent of teachers in secondary schools with the most disadvantaged intakes had five years’ experience or less, against 20 per cent in the least. DfE should report progress against the 6,500 pledge by school disadvantage and subject, not solely aggregate numbers.
The effectiveness of proposed retention measures, including the new teacher retention programme and financial incentives for headteachers
61. The proposed instruments are small relative to the disadvantage gap. Targeted retention incentives cover only a few subjects and the first five years of a teacher’s career.
62. The headteacher retention incentive is a £1 million place-based pilot, enough for roughly 65 payments at the £15,000 maximum. Non-consolidated payments in maintained schools are, on the STRB’s own account, modest recognition schemes rather than a retention lever.
63. Existing non-financial measures have had poor reach: the DfE’s evaluation of the flexible working ambassador programme found only 3 per cent of leaders were aware of it after a year, and the schools under the most pressure lacked the capacity to participate. Its successor will be promoted through RISE, which may help.
64. The DfE should publish reach and impact measures for the new retention programme, as the NAO recommended for non-financial initiatives.
The availability and quality of continuous professional development, mentoring, and leadership support
65. Development spending needs to be used better, not simply increased. Schools already spend around £2,950 per teacher a year on development, on a 2021 estimate. That estimate also found a 35-hour entitlement to high-quality development would cost roughly £210 million a year, which is less than 1 per cent of school spending.
66. The impact will depend far more on CPD quality than quantity, but the Teacher Training Entitlement is specified in terms of access and provision, not impact. DfE should set out the goals of the TTE and publish impact assessments against them.
67. The plans for SEND professional development fall short in both scale and focus since they prioritise more adaptive learning pedagogy (which is important but already fully integrated in the ITTECF) instead of addressing gaps in knowledge around foundational child development.
H. Wider Government policy
How the reforms set out in the white paper align with other Government policies affecting children and young people, including the National Youth Strategy and proposals to extend voting rights to 16 and 17-year-olds
68. What schools and colleges do is obviously important to the attainment, achievement, mental health and wellbeing of children and young people. But their impact is dwarfed by the effect of the wider – and hugely variable – society in which children and young people grow up.
69. We were pleased to see this recognised so explicitly through the Government’s Opportunity Mission. We hope that this cross-departmental approach to improving the lives and life chances of children and young people will continue.
