Research School Network: Intended outcomes: from woolly sentiments to precise ambitions – part 4 Phil Stock’s latest blog in our Pupil Premium Strategy series explores why outcomes matter and the need for precision.
—
Blog
Intended outcomes: from woolly sentiments to precise ambitions – part 4
Phil Stock’s latest blog in our Pupil Premium Strategy series explores why outcomes matter and the need for precision.
An outcome describes what you expect to see at the end of a process or following a set of deliberate actions. In relation to your Pupil Premium strategy, it’s what your disadvantaged pupils will be able to know, do and achieve by the end of the strategy’s three-year lifespan.
In many respects, the intended outcomes section is the most important part of the plan. It sets out your academic and non-academic ambitions for your most vulnerable pupils.
Without a clear articulation of what success looks like, it becomes almost impossible to evaluate, impact or judge the effectiveness of the funding. If the success criteria aren’t clear from the outset, later evaluation becomes little more than guesswork.
The intended outcomes section sets out your academic and non-academic ambitions for your most vulnerable pupils.
The DfE advises schools to set ‘ambitious but realistic target outcomes’ for disadvantaged pupils. I’d add one more qualifier: outcomes should also be clearly defined. Too often, outcomes are not granular or specific enough to make sense to others, or to align coherently with the activities listed in the next section of the strategy.
If, as explored in a previous post, the success of a strategy rests on collective action, then everyone has to understand exactly what it is that their actions are trying to achieve.
The problem with vagueness
Vagueness is usually signalled by the presence of ‘weasel words’ such as improved, rising, more of, or enhanced. These words act as comfort blankets for uncertainty – reassuring but empty. This kind of language makes accountability almost impossible and can betray a lack of precision or even ambition.
It’s easy to see why schools might hesitate to commit to measurable goals. Numbers can feel exposing; they make success and failure visible. Yet without that clarity, leaders cannot meaningfully evaluate progress, adapt provision, or explain their impact with credibility.
Vagueness is usually signalled by the presence of ‘weasel words’ such as improved, rising, more of, or enhanced.
A quick scan of many published strategies reveals how easily outcome statements drift into vagueness. Words like improved, enhanced, better, or more consistent sound positive, but they don’t tell us what has changed, by how much, or for whom. They can make a strategy sound purposeful while concealing the absence of clear thinking underneath.
A more precise outcome names the pupil group, specifies the change, and defines the evidence of success. This doesn’t make a strategy rigid; it makes it testable. When outcomes are measurable, leaders can judge whether their actions are working, adapt during reviews, and communicate progress with integrity to all stakeholders.
A more precise outcome names the pupil group, specifies the change, and defines the evidence of success.
The EEF’s report A School’s Guide to Implementation reminds us that ‘when an approach has measurable outcomes it makes it easier to learn how implementation is going and share evidence of impact with staff.’
Precise outcomes therefore form the bridge between diagnosing the challenges and planning the actions: they clarify what success will look like before any activities or interventions begin.
Another common misconception in Pupil Premium strategies is the confusion between an outcome and an action. Staff actions and processes are the means by which the outcome is achieved – they are not the outcome itself. Actions are the activity and they belong in the following section on wider academic and non-academic strategies.
Precise outcomes therefore form the bridge between diagnosing the challenges and planning the actions: they clarify what success will look like before any activities or interventions begin.
Improved outcomes for disadvantaged pupils at KS4.
‘Improved’ offers no baseline or measure – improvement could be minimal or subjective.
By 2027/28, disadvantaged pupils achieve an average Attainment 8 score of 46 or higher, and 55% achieve grade 5+ in English and maths.
More consistent progress across subjects for disadvantaged pupils.
‘More consistent’ implies some improvement but gives no indication of scale or target.
Progress of disadvantaged pupils matches or exceeds that of non-disadvantaged pupils in all core subjects, as measured by internal assessment points and validated by progress 8 scores above +0.10.
Rising attainment among disadvantaged pupils in reading and writing.
‘Rising’ suggests a trend but not a benchmark – there’s no target or threshold.
By the end of KS2, 72% of disadvantaged pupils meet the expected standard in reading and writing, narrowing the attainment gap to within 5 percentage points of national non-disadvantaged outcomes.
Enhanced wellbeing and resilience for all pupils.
‘Enhanced’ is abstract with no definition of ‘better’ wellbeing or how it will be measured.
By 2027/28, pupil wellbeing and sense of belonging (measured using the Psychological Sense of School Membership (PSSM) scale) show a positive year-on-year improvement, with disadvantaged pupils’ scores at least comparable to national norms. In addition, at least 90% report having one trusted adult in school.
Increased attendance and punctuality for disadvantaged pupils.
‘Increased’ doesn’t specify how much or what counts as success.
Sustained attendance of 94% or above by 2027/28; persistent absence reduced to below 10%, and the gap between disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged pupils closed to under 1% point.
Stronger parental engagement and home learning support.
‘Stronger’ is ambiguous: it doesn’t clarify what improvement in engagement looks like.
80% of disadvantaged parents attend one or more school events annually; home learning participation rates increase by 20% from baseline, verified through homework logs and communication records.
A simple question can help test whether an outcome is clear enough:
Could a reasonable person disagree about whether this has happened?
If ‘yes’, it’s too vague.
If ‘no’, it’s more than likely to be concrete and measurable.
The courage of clarity
Precision is ultimately an act of fairness. When we define outcomes clearly, we move the conversation from intention to evidence; from what we hope will happen to what we can actually see. Clarity makes ambition real.
Precision isn’t bureaucracy either; it’s equity in action. It ensures that success is measurable for every pupil, not just describable in hindsight.
Vague outcomes protect us from failure; precise ones make success possible. The clearer we define what improvement means, the fairer and more achievable our ambitions become – for our pupils and for ourselves.
