Imagine the lives of two children aged 16. Both from under-resourced backgrounds, they鈥檝e spent the vast majority of their school lives on free school meals. They are what researchers call 鈥減ersistently disadvantaged鈥� pupils 鈥� children who have experienced poverty throughout most of their education. That distinction matters. by the Education Policy Institute, commissioned by Teach First, shows that by the end of secondary school, persistently disadvantaged pupils are, on average, 6.7 months behind disadvantaged pupils whose experience of poverty is shorter-lived. Sustained poverty leaves a cumulative mark on children’s outcomes. Now imagine one grows up in Blackpool. One in London. Both live in households navigating the same grinding financial pressure. But by the time they sit their GCSEs, the child in Blackpool is, on average, two and a half years of learning behind their non-disadvantaged classmates. Their expected grade in GCSE English and Maths is 2.7, nearly a grade and a half below a standard pass. The child in London is also behind their more affluent peers, but by just over a year. Their expected grade in the same subjects is closer to 4. Both children experience the same poverty on paper, but their educational attainment is dramatically different – a gap that compounds as they age. Running a different race Our report maps, for the first time, how the attainment gap for persistently disadvantaged pupils (eligible for free school meals for at least 80 per cent of their time in school) varies across England. Aged 16, children face the moment when their path toward work, further study, and adult independence begins to take shape. A child who reaches that transition point two and a half years behind their peers is not starting from a different position but running an entirely different race Typically, this gap continues to widen as children consider their next steps. Nationally, one in four persistently disadvantaged pupils has no sustained qualification or apprenticeship pathway at the start of Year 12. In North Somerset, it is more than one in two. In the London Borough of Camden, it is one in ten. A rift opens up in primary school, widens through secondary, and reaches its most consequential point at 16 where, for too many young people, it tips over into leaving formal education or training entirely. London proves that trajectory is not inevitable. The capital’s stronger outcomes are not a function of shallower poverty – Tower Hamlets, Hackney, and Newham are among the most deprived boroughs in England. They are partly the product of sustained investment in school leadership and high-quality teaching in a place over more than two decades. A collective focus The London Challenge gave a collective focus, built leadership collaboration and progression opportunities that gave teachers reasons to stay. Teach First started here. It created, over time, the conditions in which even children who have known sustained poverty could achieve at high levels. The data shows it working still. And that is why Teach First is piloting a targeted placement strategy to increase teacher and leadership supply in places such as Blackpool and Thanet. We are pleased to see the government鈥檚 announcement of Mission Coastal and North East. Imagine the scale of change if all schools across England were empowered in the same way. From speaking with school leaders working with persistently disadvantaged pupils outside London, two themes emerge repeatedly: a lack of recognition for this group and insufficient resources to meet their needs. This group – perhaps the most disadvantaged children in England鈥檚 schools – is not tracked as a distinct category in national data. There is no government measure or annual reporting of their outcomes. Many teachers and leaders do exceptional work for these children that changes the trajectory of their lives. But this work is not reflected in national performance data. And schools where the gap is widening cannot send a targeted signal that support is needed. Introducing a standard definition and tracking outcomes for this group is the precondition for any other policy changes to work. A question of funding Funding matters alongside recognition. The pupil premium was a genuine advance in getting more money in classrooms with pupils who need it most, but it does not reflect the difference between short-term and sustained poverty, a difference that is real and cumulative. A persistent disadvantage top-up would begin to fund the kind of consistent, stable school environments that these children need. The fragmentation of our young people’s outcomes is the predictable consequence of uneven investment and a system that has not paid enough attention to sustained poverty. That can change. The first step is recognising persistent disadvantage, adopting a clear definition and tracking the outcomes of this group. Next, we must target funding and support towards the schools and communities serving these pupils. With the right focus, every part of England can offer children growing up in long-term poverty the opportunities that too often remain determined by postcode today.