POVERTY PROOFING THE SCHOOL DAY –the role of schools in compensating for poverty: should they have a role and if so what? Laura Mazzoli Smith and Liz Todd Research Centre for Learning and Teaching, School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences, Newcastle University

1. POVERTY PROOFING THE SCHOOL DAY –
the role of schools in compensating for poverty:
should they have a role and if so what?
Laura Mazzoli Smith and Liz Todd
Research Centre for Learning and Teaching, School of Education,
Communication and Language Sciences, Newcastle University

2. What is ‘Poverty Proofing’?
• Poverty Proofing the School Day was developed by Children North
East in 2011 from a project exploring children’s perceptions of
poverty
• It is a third party, 360⁰ degree audit which aims to ‘remove barriers to
learning’ that exist because of the impacts of poverty
• Evaluation methods were observation, interview and data analysis
• Poverty Proofing consists of
external evaluators speaking to all pupils in small groups
questionnaires/interviews for all parents, staff and governors
written report and action plan
training session for staff and governors

3. Values-led and distinctive
• The process is explicitly values-led and does not shy away from asking
difficult questions, which proved challenging at times
• The whole-school consultation process is unusual and was valued by most
participating schools in facilitating an external viewpoint of the school
• It was aimed not at individuals but at exposing institutional and cultural
practices which were inadvertently discriminating against pupils living in
poverty
• This is in the context of reports of the increasing cost of the school day (e.g.
NASUWT surveys and Children’s Society) and evidence of increasing levels
of child and in-work poverty (e.g. Institute for Fiscal Studies, Joyce 2014)

4. Key Findings
• Barriers to learning were found in every participating school in a wide
range of areas including ability/behaviour and setting, bullying, uniform,
food, exams, extra-curricular activities, support, homework, resources,
transport
• Schools were often unaware of parental and pupil perceptions and of
cumulative costs across the year – stigmatising practices are largely hidden
without an understanding of pupil’s lived experiences
• Action plans raised many low-cost ways in which schools could lessen
barriers to learning and improve how pupil premium funding was spent
• There was evidence of improved attendance and attainment and improved
take-up for FSM
• There was evidence of changed attitudes and a shift of ethos

5. Examples and feedback
Areas of particular concern and examples of changes made:
• Administration of free school meals – reorganisation/new lunch boxes, leading
to increased take-up of FSM
• Uniform costs (and non-uniform day) – reviewing uniform costs/distributing
free uniform/reducing non-uniform days, leading to a less costly school day
• The cost of extra-curricular activities and resources – self-audit of
trips/provision of more resources in school time or in after school clubs e.g. IT
access, leading to increase in pupils on FSM attending trips/clubs
This has been one of the most impactful programmes we have ever been involved
with
It is not a package, it is a process leading to a shift of ethos.
Head teacher quotes

6. Challenges
• Comprehensive institutional and cultural practices lead to stigmatization, not
individuals, but these can easily go unnoticed
• A unique opportunity to reflect on the issues through dialogue, staff training and
support in implementing change
• Evidence of a cultural shift in terms of how poverty was understood in the
context of the school day, including in staff attitudes
• Generic issues were raised across schools, which may appear to be minor in
isolation
• There was often a disparity between school and pupil/parent perceptions
• The way that children’s coping mechanisms (Hooper et al 2007) can be
misunderstood as poor behaviour or lack of engagement
• Barriers to engaging with poverty proofing e.g. culture/time/cost/lack of SMT
buy-in

7. Issues raised
• Societal context and the difficulty of discussing the challenges of poverty in
the light of moral condemnation and denial (Shildrek and MacDonald 2013)
• The critical import of having both an external viewpoint and child-focused
accounts/lived experiences of children in uncovering stigma (Ridge 2011)
• Easier to argue for pupil spending on ‘pastoral’ support with evidence of a
link to attendance/attainment
• Issues that should be addressed regionally or nationally so that individual
schools do not level down their provision relative to other schools – e.g.
uniform? online learning?
• Whole-school buy-in but differing perspectives on how much teachers
should or can be responsible for the impacts of poverty on education

8. Future directions
• Need longitudinal evidence of the impacts of Poverty Proofing
• Communicating that what are often construed as ‘pastoral’ issues
directly impact on children’s ability to learn
• Schools cannot be viewed in isolation and the cost of the school day is
a national issue, but a bottom-up local focus can have real impact
• Poverty structures and restricts everyday childhood experiences
leading to anxiety, unhappiness and insecurity (Ridge 2011) and
institutional school practices can compound this in hidden ways
• It is at the meso-level of relationships that the action plans
highlighted unwitting stigmatization

9. References
• Hooper, C. A., Gorin, S., Cabral, C. and Dyson, C. (2007) Living with Hardship 24/7: The diverse
experiences of families in poverty in England. NSPCC/The Frank Buttle Trust: London.
• Holloway, E., Mahony, S., Royston S. and Mueller, D. (2014). At What Cost? Exposing the Impact of
Poverty on School Life. Children’s Commission on Poverty, Http://Bit.Ly/1qe8xzu (Accessed: 28
February 2016). London: The Children's Society.
• Jocye, R. (2014). Child Poverty in Britain: recent trends and future prospects. London: Institute for
Fiscal Studies, IFS Working Paper W15/07.
• Mazzoli Smith, L. and Todd, L. (2016) Poverty Proofing the School Day: Evaluation and
Development Report. Research Centre for Learning and Teaching, Newcastle University.
• NASUWT (2014) The Cost of Education.
http://www.nasuwt.org.uk/consum/groups/public/@education/documents/nas_download/nasu
wt_013630.pdf
• Ridge, T. (2011) The Everyday Cost of Poverty in Childhood: A review of qualitative research
exploring the lives and experiences of low-income children in the UK. Children and Society, 25(1):
73-84.
• Shildrick, T. and MacDonald, R. (2013). Poverty Talk: How People Experiencing Poverty Deny Their
Poverty and Why They Blame ‘the Poor’. The Sociological Review 61(2):285-303.

10. Contact
Research Centre for Learning and Teaching
School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences
Newcastle University
King George VI Building
Queen Victoria Road
Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU
www.ncl.ac.uk/cflat
laura.mazzolismith@newcastle.ac.uk
liz.todd@newcastle.ac.uk