Two-child benefit cap lifted: why this matters for governing boards
This blog considers the impact of ending the two-child benefit cap and highlights why governing boards must keep equity, disadvantage and children’s wellbeing at the forefront of their work.
With the autumn budget 2025 announced, the government’s long-awaited Child Poverty Strategy is set to follow. Government statistics show that 4.5 million children in the UK are growing up in poverty – almost one third of all children. In the Secretary of State’s own words, delivering their “manifesto commitment to put this right is an urgent priority,” which they hope to achieve through a 10-year strategy that aims to tackle the systemic drivers of poverty.
While we wait for that longer-term vision, this year’s budget includes one immediate and significant change: the removal of the two-child limit on benefits, enabling families to receive universal credit (UC) for a third or subsequent child.
This is a major change. By 2029-30, it is expected to support around 560,000 families, and ministers estimate that removing the cap will lift around 450,000 children out of poverty. Alongside other key voices in the sector, NGA has supported this initiative – one that has the potential to transform children’s lives.
Why child poverty must stay on the agenda
Although removing the two-child limit will improve the circumstances of almost half a million children, the prevalence of poverty in this country means the job is far from done. The educational impacts of poverty remain far-reaching, and those governing play a critical role in mitigating them.
The link between poverty and educational disadvantage is well-documented. Research consistently finds that pupils from poorer families achieve lower levels of attainment than their peers – something the Education Policy Institute (EPI) describes as the disadvantage gap. Clearly, these consequences continue into adulthood with educational achievement being one of the most influential factors affecting employment prospects, and so, the risk of future poverty.
A core aspect of the governing board’s role is to hold school/trust leaders to account for improving outcomes for all pupils. But with poverty impacting almost every aspect of school life for the pupils affected, the oversight role for governors and trustees is stretched across multiple fronts. Some of these areas include:
- Attendance: families facing financial pressure often struggle with transport costs, access to school equipment or unstable housing, all factors that can hinder regular school attendance.
- Behaviour: stress, hunger and/or insecurity can manifest as behavioural challenges impacting pupils’ learning.
- Exclusions: disadvantaged pupils remain disproportionately more likely to be suspended or permanently excluded – the cconsequences of which include an increased likelihood of disrupted pathways into further education or employment and a greater risk of involvement with the law.
- Personal development: opportunities such as trips, music lessons or enrichment activities can be out of reach for pupils whose families already face impossible choices between essentials.
- Safeguarding: children experiencing severe financial hardship may be at increased risk of neglect or exploitation.
- Careers and aspirations: pupils growing up in poverty often have limited access to networks, opportunities and role models who can help them imagine futures beyond their immediate circumstances.
- SEND: As highlighted in the Sutton Trust’s recent report on the ‘double disadvantage’, children from less affluent backgrounds are less likely to obtain a personalised support plan, making it harder for them to access the support they need.
In other words, poverty shapes the context in which boards make decisions every day. It influences the support leaders must provide, the pressures schools absorb and the experiences of the pupils and communities we serve.
Schools as the fourth emergency service
The idea of schools as the ‘fourth emergency service’ emerged at the height of a cost-of-living crisis. Two years on, our Annual Governance Survey findings suggest that this perception remains unchanged. This year more than half of respondents reported an increase in the support provided by their school or trust through additional services, which include second hand uniform provision, wraparound care before and after school, and breakfast provision.
Much of this is unsurprising. We know that schools and trusts have never just been about the knowledge they impart. They have always been in the business of supporting children whose needs extend far beyond the classroom, frequently stepping in where wider public services have been stretched thin. As a result, the deterioration of the social safety net over the years has had major implications for schools who have been left to grapple with the consequences of wider national policy decisions which, up until this point, included the two-child benefit cap.
Shaping government policy: NGA’s advocacy
At NGA, securing the best possible outcomes for children is the foundation of all our work. So, when schools and trusts are forced to firefight the impact of policies that deepen inequality, we feel a responsibility to speak up.
Over the past year, we have joined other organisations, alongside our partners at Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), in calling for the abolition of the two-child limit. We signed a joint letter from educational bodies urging ministers to act and, more recently, supported an open letter signed by over 100 organisations. The evidence was clear: lifting the limit is one of the most cost-effective ways to reduce child poverty and we are pleased that the Chancellor has listened to the sector’s collective voice. By taking decisive action, the government has taken a significant step towards giving every child the best possible start in life. It builds on other positive shifts we’ve seen this year, such as expanding free school meals for children from families receiving UC, and measures to reduce the cost of the school day through initiatives like limiting branded school uniform items.
However, announcements alone are not enough. Policies need adequate funding and systemic support to succeed. We’ve heard reports of some early years initiatives and breakfast club pilots having been limited by insufficient resources. Without long-term investment and the required system architecture, even well-intentioned reforms risk falling short of their potential.
The road ahead
Although we can approach the end of the year feeling encouraged, we know the handbrake must stay off. This means continuing to champion the needs of disadvantaged pupils in our schools and trusts, while advocating for greater systemic change. Child poverty is not just a social issue, but an educational one, and by maintaining an intentional focus on equity, we can help to secure the opportunities for every child to thrive – inside and outside the classroom.
Fariha Choudhury
Senior Projects and Advocacy Officer
Fariha supports the development of NGA's policy and information outputs with a particular focus on multi academy trust governance. Alongside working at NGA, Fariha is undertaking a Masters in Education at the University of Birmingham.
