Teachers are more likely to be harder on students from low-income families than those who are better off, a new study claims.

Researchers at Institute of Education at University College London (UCL) found that pupils from poor backgrounds will not be considered to be “above average”, even when they do just as well as other children in tests.

Examining data on 5,000 seven-year-old pupils in state schools in England - who form part of the Millennium Cohort Study - Tammy Campbell, lead researcher and author of the report, found some interesting results.

Comparing the way in which teachers perceived maths and reading abilities of their students with standardised assessments carried out by pollsters who visited the youngsters at home, it emerged that there was some bias involved in scoring results.

In short, teachers were found to be harder on low-income pupils, even when it was determined that results across the board were similar, irrespective of background.

"These findings show that there are factors affecting attainment, as evaluated by teachers, which are outside of children's and parents' control,” Dr Campbell said.

“Unless they are addressed, they may continue to play a part in creating and perpetuating inequalities. National statistics and education policy could inadvertently contribute to the problem. Initiatives such as the pupil premium may convey the message that children from lower-income families are inherently less able."

Consequently, the result is that it may be harder to spot a low-income pupil that is either doing well or at least achieving a average score, she continued. Policymakers should take this onboard when putting in place new schemes.

"Teachers could also be offered appropriate training to enable them to recognise ability irrespective of the children's backgrounds," she concluded.