When chancellor Rishi Sunak sat down after making his autumn Budget statement last week, the initial consensus among education policy watchers appeared to be cautious gratitude. Year after year of school budget cuts meant that any funding boost was going to feel like pennies from heaven for a cash-starved sector.

But - and when it comes to school funding there is always a “but” - it soon became clear that the increase in funding and catch-up support wasn’t as generous as it first appeared, and that secondary students would get double the support.

According to the Treasury, the evidence shows that Year 7-11s need the most help, which is why the government is doubling their catch-up premium allocations from next year. Primary pupils are not deemed as needy when it comes to learning loss, so will only receive an extension of the premium they have received this year for the next two years - but with no increase.

But the question is: is this fair?

The evidence from hard academic progress measures does seem, on the face of it, to back up the Treasury’s reasoning. The Department for Education has told Tes that the calculation was based on learning loss evidence gathered by the Education Policy Institute at the end of the autumn term in 2020, which showed that primary pupils bounced back far quicker than secondary students. The EPI’s evidence, published (quietly) by the DfE last Friday afternoon, also showed that this trend had continued following the spring term lockdown.

At a national level, by the end of the spring term, learning losses for disadvantaged pupils were 2.7 months in reading for children in primary school, but this had recovered to 1.2 months by the summer term.

In contrast, disadvantaged students in secondary schools had fallen further behind by the summer. In reading, losses in autumn term 2020 were 1.9 months for disadvantaged students, but by summer term 2021, the gap had widened to 2.4 months.

However, these statistics may be hiding the impact that the pandemic has had on younger pupils at the earliest stages of their development. As a parent, I can see first-hand the role schools have in social and emotional development, particularly in early years foundation stage and key stage 1. I have a child in primary and one in secondary, and, anecdotally, I can’t see any evidence that the secondary-age child needs more support. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Among KS1 pupils, I am aware of mounting evidence that they are experiencing deep anxiety over being behind with their learning, as they are still learning the basic tools they need to adapt to the circumstances they find themselves in. I have heard of young pupils doing things such as putting objects in their mouths because they are so fretful about not being able to read as well as they feel they should be able to - with one worrying report of a hospitalisation.

As early years head Julian Grenier pointed out to Tes last week, the disadvantage gap for pupils on free school meals doubles by the end of primary. So surely, in purely economic terms, greater investment by the government now to deal with the widened gap these pupils are facing post-pandemic would result in a productive, if not crucial, return.

The impact may be hidden in the headline stats for now, but it will likely emerge as these pupils progress. Is the DfE content to take that risk, or will it help teachers and school leaders to nip these emerging problems in the bud before pupils end up needing greater catch-up investment when they reach secondary and beyond?

This article originally appeared in the 5 November 2021 issue under the headline “Denying primary children extra catch-up cash could prove costly”