The government has announced £22.5 million of support for more than 400 secondary schools in disadvantaged communities through the Enrichment Expansion programme. The funding is intended to help schools widen access to activities such as sport, music, debating, volunteering and outdoor learning, supported by Enrichment Co-ordinators and national partners.
The announcement matters beyond the schools selected for direct support. It links the funding to the Department for Education’s enrichment framework, which gives all schools and colleges in England a practical basis for reviewing who participates, who misses out and whether activities advance wider institutional priorities.
What the announcement changes
The Enrichment Expansion programme is a funded policy initiative, delivered by the Youth Sport Trust and partners. It is not legislation, statutory guidance or a new legal entitlement for pupils. The DfE has not announced a general application route, individual allocations or a requirement for every school to deliver a prescribed menu of activities.
The programme nevertheless gives the existing non-statutory enrichment framework greater operational weight. Dedicated co-ordinators will manage clusters of local schools, identify gaps, help develop plans and connect schools with local organisations. The funding forms part of the National Youth Strategy’s commitment to invest £22.5 million over three years in a stronger enrichment offer in up to 400 schools and to halve the participation gap between disadvantaged young people and their peers by 2035.
For governing bodies and trust boards, the immediate question is therefore not simply whether their schools will receive funding. It is whether leaders understand current participation well enough to make sensible decisions if support, partnership opportunities or future funding become available.
Using the benchmarks as a management tool
The DfE’s eight benchmarks cover strategic alignment, breadth, communication, community input, accessibility, partnership working, outcomes and continuous improvement. Because the framework is non-statutory, schools are not legally required to demonstrate compliance with each indicator. It should be used as a structured improvement tool rather than presented to staff as a new mandatory standard.
A useful first step is to map the current offer against the five broad categories identified in the benchmarks: civic engagement; arts and culture; nature, outdoor and adventure; sport and physical activity; and wider life and future skills. The purpose is not to create an activity in every category immediately. Mapping reveals where the offer is narrow, duplicated or dependent on a single member of staff.
Participation data then needs to sit alongside the activity list. A school may appear to have a strong programme while the same confident pupils take most available places. Leaders should examine take-up by year group and, where proportionate, by disadvantage, SEND, caring responsibilities, attendance patterns and other locally relevant factors. The exercise must use personal data lawfully, keep analysis proportionate and avoid labelling pupils publicly.
Remove the barriers that the data exposes
The most valuable analysis will identify why pupils do not participate. Cost is one barrier, but timing, transport, equipment, confidence, accessibility and family awareness may matter just as much.
Consider a pupil who wants to join a debating group but travels home on the only suitable bus. Adding another after-school club will not solve that pupil’s problem. Moving some sessions into lunchtime, arranging an occasional online element or working with a community partner nearer the pupil’s home may achieve more than increasing the number of activities advertised.
Schools must continue to meet their existing legal responsibilities. These may include making reasonable adjustments for disabled pupils under the Equality Act 2010, safeguarding children, carrying out appropriate risk assessment, following safer recruitment and vetting requirements, and handling personal data properly. Those duties apply because of the activity and the people involved; they do not arise from the new funding announcement itself.
Good practice goes further. Schools can ask pupils directly what prevents participation, reserve or actively promote places for groups that are under-represented, review charges and subsidies, and make information available in accessible formats. A nominally open activity is not necessarily accessible if families cannot understand the joining process or meet hidden costs.
Governance without unnecessary bureaucracy
Boards need meaningful assurance rather than club-by-club operational detail. Management information could show participation, significant gaps, expenditure, external partners, safeguarding arrangements and a small number of intended outcomes. It should also explain what has changed following pupil and parent feedback.
Outcomes should be chosen carefully. Attendance, behaviour, confidence, belonging or careers awareness may all be relevant, but an association does not prove that an activity caused an improvement. Schools should avoid exaggerated claims and use a mixture of participation data, pupil feedback and focused case evaluation.
Partnerships can extend what a school can offer, particularly where specialist staff, facilities or transport are limited. Before entering an arrangement, leaders should establish who is responsible for safeguarding, supervision, insurance, data sharing, accessibility and incident management. A partner’s reputation or charitable status is not a substitute for proportionate due diligence.
Practical steps for school and trust leaders
Schools can take six proportionate actions now:
- Nominate a senior leader to coordinate the review and report to the appropriate governor or trust committee.
- Complete the DfE self-assessment against the eight benchmarks, recording evidence and gaps rather than assigning optimistic scores.
- Analyse who participates and consult pupils who are absent from the data, especially disadvantaged pupils and those with SEND.
- Select two or three barriers that can realistically be reduced this academic year, with named owners and review dates.
- Create a local partnership map covering voluntary groups, employers, cultural organisations, sports providers and further or higher education institutions.
- Confirm that safeguarding, equality, financial, insurance and data protection controls remain suitable for the activities delivered.
Schools approached through the expansion programme should also clarify what support and funding are offered, any conditions attached, the period of delivery and the information they will be expected to collect. Those details are not set out in the press release and should not be assumed.
The announcement creates a useful opportunity to treat enrichment as part of educational planning rather than a collection of optional clubs. A concise review, grounded in pupil access and realistic delivery, will leave schools better placed to use the new programme where eligible and improve their existing offer whether or not direct funding follows.
