Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Written evidence submitted by Child Poverty Action Group (CWSB46)

Introduction

Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) works on behalf of the more than one in four children in the UK growing up in poverty. We use our understanding of what causes poverty and the impact it has on children’s lives to campaign for policies that will prevent and solve poverty – for good.

Based on the latest data, 4.3 million children are living in poverty in the UK today , that’s 9 in an average classroom of 30 . [1] The cost of sending a child to school adds significant pressure to these households and acts as a barrier to learning and school life. [2] CPAG has carried out extensive data analysis and research on how poverty impacts the educational experiences and outcomes of children growing up in lower income households. Through ou r Cost of the School Day project, we have worked with schools across the UK, gathering insights from pupils, parents, teachers and schools on the barriers that poverty presents for children.

Executive summary

This submission provides evidence on policies contained in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, alongside policy areas where opportunities to tackle child poverty and support children’s wellbeing were missed in this legislation. CPAG support s the government’s mission to break down barrier s to opportunity, and broadly welcomes changes in the Bill that seek to reduce school costs for families. T hese include limiting the number of branded uniform items schools can require, and the introduction of free breakfast provision for all primary school children in state-funded schools.

Ho wever, this Bill has the potential to go further to support the wellbeing of children living in poverty with bolder action on child poverty, the cost of schooling ( such as expanding eligibility for free school meals (FSM) ) and providing grants to families to help with uniform costs. We hope government will ta ke the opportunity to take additional action in a number of ways. Our key points are:

1. The legislation fails to address the root causes of child poverty, which has a significant impact on children’s experiences and outcomes at school.

2. Limits on uniform costs is a welcome start, but there is scope to go further to adequately support children and families with the cost of school uniform.

3. Breakfast clubs must be properly funded, and further investment in after-school and holiday provision is needed.

4. Expanding free school meal provision and uptake is essential to supporting children’s wellbeing and time at school but was missed in the legislation.

5. The government should use the curriculum and assessment review process to assess and reduce the cost of resources for school subjects.

Child poverty and children’s wellbeing

1. The legislation fails to address the root causes of child poverty, which has a significant impact on children’s experiences and outcomes at school.

This Bill fails to address the root causes of child poverty, which limits the impact other changes it contains can have on children and means the harm of poverty will continue to permeate our school system. With nine children in an average classroom of 30 currently growing up in poverty, schools are increasingly forced to try to mitigate the consequences of families facing financial hardship. [3] The evidence is clear on the links between child poverty and education ; money at home makes a difference when it comes to educational outcomes. [4] Children growing up in poverty have lower educational outcomes at every stage of education from early years through to A-levels, and efforts to narrow and eradicate this gap have not succeeded. [5] It’s not just learning and exam performance that are influenced by poverty, children growing up in poverty are also more likely to be absent , [6] suspended or excluded from school. [7]

Child poverty also has a causal effect on children’s mental health and wellbeing, with children living in the poorest 20 per cent of households in the UK four times more likely to struggle with mental health challenges at the age of 11 than those in the wealthiest 20 per cent. [8] DfE survey data also shows that children in receipt of FSMs are less likely to report feeling safe at school and to have a sense of belonging when at school , compared to their better-off peers . [9] They are more likely to report that they have been the victim of bullying or to spend time playing alone.

Across every measurable metric, poverty is holding back the life chances of children in education. Ambitions and reform in education will not be fully realised until child poverty is eradicated. Addressing child poverty would unleash potential within our school system, make it easier for children to learn and get on at school, and free up time and capacity which is being diverted to tackling poverty-related issues. The forthcoming publication of the government’s child poverty strategy will be a critical moment for the health, wellbeing, education and life-chances of children up and down the UK.

School uniforms

2. Limits on uniform costs is a welcome start, but there is scope to go further to adequately support children and families with the cost of uniform.

CPAG broadly welcomes clause 23 of the bill, which introduces a statutory limit on the number of branded uniform items schools can require pupils to have. Th e existing statutory gui dance on uniform cost does not go far enough to ensure uniforms are affordable, leaving scope for schools to continue to have excessive expensive compulsory uniform requirements . This provision will improve that situation for families.

T he requirement of any number of compulsory branded items places considerable strain on family budget s and acts as a barrier to education, and government must do all it can to reduce this type of pressure. CPAG believes that as a minimum clause 23 could do more to protect secondary -age children and their families , who face higher uniform costs, by enforcing the same upper limit on compulsory branded items as in primary schools (three rather than four, if this includes a tie). But g overnment should also c onsider whether this bill can reduce further still the number of branded items that can be required.

Parents’ biggest school cost worry is uniform, with 47 per cent of parents saying it is of particular concern to them. CPAG analysis finds that parents of primary school children are paying at a minimum £352.86 per year for uniform and P.E. kit, and parents of secondary school children are paying a minimum of £481.77 per year. The high cost of uniform also affects school attendance. CPAG resea rch [10] found that pupils from lower-income families were more likely to report occasions when they could not attend school because they only had one uniform which was in the wash or not dry . [11] Research from the DfE also shows children from households facing financial hardship are much more likely than their peers to report that their child has been sent home from school because they did not have the right uniform.

While limiting compulsory branded uniform will enable parents to shop around for more affordable items, families on a lower income need more help with the cost of school uniform and kit. England is the only UK nation where there is no national grant to help with uniform costs, despite it being the largest school cost for families . This leaves families facing a postcode lottery when it comes to uniform costs. It will be important for government to go further and provide a framework and funding for grants to families who are struggling to buy uniforms, as happens elsewhere in the UK, and ensure that the social security system properly supports the needs of children and their families, helping to lift them out of poverty.

The Behaviour in Schools guidance should also be updated so that children are not sanctioned for income-related issues, such as not meeting uniform requirements or attending lessons without resources the school expects families to provide from home .  

Breakfast clubs and school food standards

3. Breakfast clubs must be properly funded, and further investment in after-school and holiday provision is needed.

Clause 21 of the Bill would require appropriate school authorities in England to make free breakfast club provision for qualifying pupils. Breakfast club provision is defined as including at least 30 minutes of childcare and breakfast before the start of the school day . Qualifying pupils are those who attend state-funded primary school s .

The government’s plans for breakfast clubs to be freely available in all state-funded primary schools in England are welcome. Breakfast provision works to address classroom hunger, reduces childcare costs, supports children to be ready for the school day , and supports parents to enter work or work more hours . [12] However, they must be adequately funded over the long term to ensure clubs are properly staffed, do not impede on stretched school budgets, provide good nutrition and are accessible to lower-income families.

The government must also build on this commitment by working towards funding provision for pupils at secondary school as well as establishing funded after-school provision. Children in receipt of FSMs are currently less likely than their peers to take part in extra-curricular clubs at school, and cost is a key factor in this. We know children in lower-income families are also less likely to take part in these activities outside of school, [13] and a lack of after-school provision also affects working patterns for parents. CPAG is calling for comprehensive investment in both before- and after-school clubs and holiday provision , so all children can thrive and struggling families have more opportunities to work. Breakfast clubs are a welcome start, but support and f u nding for an extended school day must go further.

Free school meals provision

4. Expanding free school meal provision and uptake is essential to supporting children’s wellbeing and time at school but was missed in the legislation.

Free breakfasts for primary pupils are a welcome step, but not all children will attend these clubs and therefore benefit from this provision. Lunchtimes are a compulsory part of the school day, attended by all children and have an impact on children’s experience at school and wellbeing.

Expanding free lunch provision must be a priority for the government. One in three children in England living in poverty currently miss out on FSMs because the qualifying criteria is so strict. [14] A household in receipt of universal credit must have an annual earned income of less than £7,400 to be eligible for FSMs. England currently has by far the harshest criteria of any UK nation, and this is compounding poverty in schools. DfE data suggests a round one in 10 children who are eligible for FSMs are also missing out because they are not registered for them. [15]

In an evaluation of the Mayor of London’s universal primary free school meals scheme, CPAG found that this provision supported children and family wellbeing, with 31 per cent of parents saying their child’s mental wellbeing had improved and 35 per cent saying they felt their child enjoyed school more as a result of the policy. Our analysis shows families are also finding it increasingly difficult to pay for school meals. Dinner money debt in primary schools in England has risen by around 50 per cent over the past two academic years (2021/22 compared to 2023/24). [16]

This Bill was a missed opportunity to improve and address issues in the current free school meal system. The bill should also include provisions to implement a national FSM auto-enrolment system , expand FSMs to more children who urgently need them and wipe dinner money debt . In the longer term, CPAG calls for the government to remove means-testing entirely from the dining hall and move towards universal provision of school food. This supports children’s outcomes and wellbeing , relieves financial pressures on families and reduces strains on schools.

Curriculum costs

5. The government should use the curriculum and assessment review process to assess and reduce the cost of resources for school subjects.

Pupils from lower-income households face cost barriers when it comes to full participation in the curriculum. These range from purchasing revision guides and study materials to going on curriculum- related trips. In secondary school, our research found that families spend a minimum of £279 on resources and equipment to take part in the curriculum – eg , on laptops and revision guides, and on costs for specific subjects eg , materials for design technology, specific PE kit or ingredients for food technology. [17] A study found three-quarters of teachers reported that some pupils are asked to supply ingredients for food technology lessons . [18]

The cost of taking part in certain subjects can impact on pupils’ subject choices. Pupils from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are 39 per cent less likely than their peers to take music at GCSE in part due to the cost of instrument tuition. They are 49 per cent less likely to take PE which is partially linked to the cost of equipment and extra-curricular sports coaching. [19] Costs related to homework and home learning also create a barrier for pupils. For example, lacking devices, data, software and connectivity prevents participation in education and leads to social isolation. There are also challenges around materials needed to complete homework tasks, and evidence from the pandemic showed that many children do not have a quiet place to study at home. [20]

An important next step for government will be to ensure that costs related to learning and the curriculum can be addressed for children facing socioeconomic disadvantage to be able to access and participate in lessons equally.

Recommendations to government

1. Clause 23 of the bill should be tightened so that, at a minimum, the limit on mandatory branded uniform items in secondary schools is three, equivalent to primary schools. Uniform grants should be made available to families struggling with the cost of school uniform and P.E. kit. The Behaviour in Schools guidance should also be updated so that children are not sanctioned for income-related issues, such as not meeting uniform requirements.

2. Breakfast clubs must be adequately funded by government to ensure clubs are properly staffed, do not impede on stretched school budgets, provide good nutrition and are accessible to lower-income families

3. Comprehensive investment in before- and after-school provision and holiday provision is needed, so all children can thrive and struggling families have more opportunities to work.

4. Free school meals eligibility must be urgently expanded to more children in lower income households, dinner money debt should be wiped and pupils eligible for FSM should be automatically enrolled. In the longer-term, work towards a system where means-testing is removed in entirely from the dining hall and universal provision reaches children in the early years right through to the end of school.

5. Review and reform the current Charging for School Activities guidance. No child should have to pay to take part in subjects at school and curriculum-related trips and activities.

Conclusion

Ambitions from government for our education system and children’s wellbeing a re very welcome but must include bold action to tackle the root causes of child poverty. Policy change is also needed to bring down the cost of the school day which currently puts family budgets under pressure and means children miss out on opportunities when they are at school. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools B ill contains some welcome steps including introducing breakfast clubs in primary schools and limiting the number of branded school uniform items which will make a difference for children and families. There is , however, more that could be achieved through this bil l and elsewhere with more support for families on significant school costs including, uniform, before and after school provision , school meals and curriculum costs .

January 2025