To Think This Is Discriminatory?(95 Posts)
Dd1 is 14 and ds is 12. They both attend the local secondary school.
They both do well at school and are both on or above their targets. (I'm not boasting, this is relevant information)
My income is very low and so they receive free school meals.
On Friday they were both withdrawn from class at different times to speak with the school 'Progression Manager' Several other children were also removed to speak with him too.
They were informed that as they are on free school meals they were being monitored to see if they might need extra help with their work.
Basically there is an assumption that because they're from a poor family they might be a bit thick!!
I'm stunned that they are linking poverty with poor intellect!!
Agree that the way school have tackled this is incredibly divisive.
The school have done this in a really cack-handed way.
I am an advisory teacher for Looked After Children, who also receive pupil premium. Prt of my role is monitoring achievement of the children on my caseload, and finding out how their pupil premium grant (PPG) has been used to further their academic attainment.
"Wilson but why still monitor children when they're doing very well?"
Because they may be able to do better- exceed their target, gain A*s, apply to Oxbridge etc.
In an ideal world, this would happen for all children, but the government have chosen to focus on this particular group.
Things schools have used the PPG for include: 1:1 tuition, extra curricular lessons, summer schools and laptops.
The money needs to be used to make sure children reach their academic potential- regardless of whether they are currently doing well IYSWIM.
There is a discussion to be had as to whether the school have set targets too low if they feel that children may be able to achieve them with additional input, but that is another thread
There is nothing wrong with monitoring the children, it is just that, monitoring.
What would be discriminatory is if your DCs were e.g. put in a special class so they could have "extra support" because they are on FSM.
However I don't think it was necessary to withdraw them from class to monitor them. All the "Progression Manager" needed to do was ask to see e.g. the teachers markbook, and talk with the teacher, to target those most in need of extra support.
I'd work with your children to improve their self-esteem op
It shouldn't have had such a bad effect on them.
But forty my DS school does get money for his SN, trouble is it's up to the HT to spend as they see fit. What they see fit and what I see fit are two different things. At least the pupil premium is ring-fenced so it has to be spent on the pupils it is intended for. I said upthread, I don't think the way this school has gone about it is particularly helpful, but I wish my son's funding was ringfenced and they had to report back exactly how WilsonJrs money was spent on WilsonJr.
I am aghast still thst children in school meals were pulled from classes by a "progression manager" to have their work monitored. I don't care about statistics, what about the child's feelings FGS! I would complain. Apart from the utter crassness and stupidity, it also signifies laziness. Rather than bothering to read individual children's reports and maybe speak to the parent, its easier to herd a bunch of probably confused children into a room and ask them how they are doing as they're on school meals. Box ticked. Honestly some teachers shouldn't be anywhere near children. And the end does not justify the means.
I think it's great they were offered help even though they're doing well! There might be some kids who are doing well but could do even better with a bit of support (I was one of these although it was to do with a lack of effort rather than fsm!)
Poverty (which they are defining by fsm) is inextricably linked to not achieving potential at school . There are many complex reasons for this, not just intelligence ("you're poor so you must be thick") but the attitudes of some parents , lower aspirations, peer pressure and many more. Of course these don't apply in all cases and I'm pleased to see they don't seem to in your DC's. But the school is right to try and help redress these disadvantages if they are present.
Good idea. Bad execution.
Op - it may be worth you going to talk to the school about what you think the pupil premium should be spent on for your children. Is there anything education based that you wish you could buy but can't?
imo it should have been a conversation with the parent - which might be a good chance to gain insight in what support - if any - was required. And the parent is more likely to be able to discuss and understand in finer detail what the program is and what options are available to their dc etc maybe a further meeting once all is in place with the dc so it can be discussed with them in an appropriate manner with the support of the parents who will be part of that plan - if any is needed.
It's crazy system in my view.
My DC are not in receipt of FSM, however my son has SN and SEN and I have been to hell and back to try and get extra funding for him.
Yet I know of a little girl in his class who is extremely bright ( my friends daughter) who gets FSM and will get extra help on this bases.
I don't know why this funding can be stopped and use it for the children who actually need it. I say that on both ends of the scale from those who struggle to those who are gifted.
If it's a countrywide initiative they can't just pick and choose who to apply it to. Statistically they are less likely to do well - of course that doesn't mean that they are not doing well.
I would have loved free school dinners and extra tuition, or atleast someone to check on me, sadly I was neglected by a parent earning lots of money, money that I never benefited from and through neglect wasn't able to study as much as I wanted too. Don't be offended OP, trying to identify children that need support isn't easy, they were just trying to help.
The school has to do this, if they want any hope of getting/keeping a good/outstanding at the next OFSTED inspection. 'narrowing the gap' is the current buzzword. They HAVE to demonstrate what they're doing to help their FSM children, if your DC are doing well academically they still have to prove to OFSTED exactly what they have done to improve your DC's life chances (whether they need them improving or not) with the pupil premium allocated for your DC. They should/could find themselves in receipt of free after school activities/trips.
Having said that it's a requirement for all schools, it does sound like your school have been shockingly crass in fulfilling their obligations.
MrsDV's situation proves just how stupid this system is!
Tinycc, that is an excellent idea!
you are being ridiculous
I am amazed at some of the responses you've had here. And completely understand why your son was embarrassed. How insulting to be explicitly singled out in this way, just how rude as well as thick.
As the kids are bright, could you turn it round on school and ask how they're going to use the pupil premium to further stretch them and enhance their learning opportunities?
MrsDV you are completely right in the sense that your family and mine totally demonstrate how arbitrary it all is. They obviously select on one criteria when its so much more complicated than that.
I'm honestly not as smug as this post will undoubtedly come across, but my DC are:
In possession of educated parents both with careers and in the highest tax bracket (so no FSM)
Probably from one of the most financially comfortable families in their school
Part of a 2 parent family, neither of whom have disabilities
Previously recorded as excelling at school
Not disabled and perfectly healthy
Yet because they are black, or considered to be and male, they were grouped in as 'disadvantaged' when really if you had looked around that school it was quite obvious that lots of children of different ethnicities were in much more challenging situations and needed the time and support my DC were getting unnecessarily.
I think these initiatives have good intentions but they could do with being better thought out and having a series of qualifying criterion not just one or two.
Our income is low.
Our kids are mixed race and have a disabled parent and a disabled sibling.
They are male and working class.
All things that have been shown to be risk factors for poor educational achievement.
But we don't qualify for FSM. Do the pack lunches I make give them superpowers allowing them to overcome all of things sociologists have deemed to disadvantage them?
The logic is sound but you'd have to be incredibly naive not to think children would feel singled out for this.
Children totally notice disparities in income/ ability/ etc, and if a child is being pulled out of class to go off with the 'special teacher' or 'for a chat with Mr Soandso', of course others will notice and most children would feel embarrassed by this, I think.
There must surely be a way to do this that doesn't breed resentment.
Also, it's not like the OP kicked off about this and then lo and behold, her DC were upset. She feels like this because her DC came home and told her they didn't like it. Which says to me that it was handled clumsily, otherwise they would never have come home talking about it in the first place.
The logic is sound. It is proven that pupils on fsm are statistically less likely to achieve their potential. This is proven in singular cases, and school level (schools with a very high % of fsm pupils often do less well than those in more affluent areas)
If the way it was executed left your child embarrassed or upset then that needs discussing - but not the scheme in general. Hitting decent marks is NOT the same as achieving your potential.
You sound very sensitive over the issue tbh and it's a YABU from me.
An example of how it can help an excelling student might be providing revision guides, or opportunities to attend trips to FE colleges for instance. Our school provides transport for students whose parents can't pick them up following revision sessions/ extra curricular activities (we are in a rural area where public transport is poor).
Even children on FSM who are doing exceptionally well may benefit from some extra support from school.
Schools are in such a hard position sometimes- criticised if they do help, criticised if they don't.
Schools recieve Pupil Premium funding which MUST be spent on students in reciept of FSM or who are in care. I think that this sounds like a very transparent way of establishing with the children what may be needed.
ys i agree regarding calling it discrimination
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.