Advanced search

Why are poor children considered a lost cause

(188 Posts)
mrsbucketxx Tue 24-Jun-14 08:42:23

I had my ds's new school induction yesterday and there attitude to families who are less well off really shocked me, if you earn less than 16k your child will receive extra dupport in their education more help at home etc.

Aibu to think they are saying if your poor you have less intellegent children, or you are less likely as a parent to support your childs education at home.

Help with lunches yes
Help witn paying for trips yes

I dont think extra staff and home support is needed it would look like a slap in the face as a parent just cause I dont earn as much.

Or am I being extra sensitive.

mrsbucketxx Tue 24-Jun-14 08:42:45

Support not dupport

AnyoneForTennis Tue 24-Jun-14 08:44:55

What 'home support' is it?

unweavedrainbow Tue 24-Jun-14 08:47:31

If they were considered a "lost cause" they wouldn't offer the extra support? Statistically, children with parents on lower incomes do less well, regardless of their intelligence. It's just about making sure that all children achieve their potential.

ZebraLovesKnitting Tue 24-Jun-14 08:50:10

I'd want to know that if a child of parents who are better off was struggling, would that child get "home support" and the same resources as the child of someone less well off?

tiggytape Tue 24-Jun-14 08:51:12

Statistically, pupils from a poor background do less well at most stages of education regardless of things like natural ability, additional needs etc. There are lots of reasons for this and, of course, it is a generalisation that does not apply to all. Although the evidence is strong that there is a direct link some poor children do very well and some wealthy children underachieve. Extra funding has to be used just for these pupils so I suppose that is what the school is doing

What kind of extra support are they offering?

ZebraLovesKnitting Tue 24-Jun-14 08:52:21

But I agree with you. The assumption is awful, and just separates the lower-income from everyone else in yet another way.

Gileswithachainsaw Tue 24-Jun-14 08:54:34

Me to zebra

Ideally the support should be available to everyone.

The reason a family might not be poor is because both parents with long hours, leaving the kid being passed around between friends and family and missing out on the support at home too (through time not through intent or lack of parental education)

Purpleroxy Tue 24-Jun-14 08:54:38

I think you're being sensitive. They are trying to address a problem which has presumably been proven in educational studies. If they find a poor child doing well and receiving good support at home then they will be happy and target their resources elsewhere. Just like if they find a rich child struggling and parents not caring then they will address that. The generalisation is just a starting point I would have thought.

OwlinaTree Tue 24-Jun-14 08:54:57

Do you mean the pupil premium? If so YABU. If they were considered a lost cause the government wouldn't be putting this in place.

Non pupil premium children would still be supported by school out of school budget.

Equally, AFAIK, home support is available through parent partnership to all parents.

ILoveCoreyHaim Tue 24-Jun-14 08:55:20

I think it's good thy are offering support. I my school there were only 3 kids on free meals, mine. The school are really supportive and I had trips paid when I was struggling. They also have a homework club for kids who haven't do their homework. They go away for an hr on a Monday with a helper and do it while the others do something else. I think it's a good idea. Sometimes I have missed HW with 3 DC as a SP and working weekends and on he odd occasion they have done it at school then joined in with the discussion about it.

CinnabarRed Tue 24-Jun-14 08:55:47

I think it's simply a case if targeting limited resources as effectively as possible - it's not a comment on you personally, although I can entirely see why it might feel as though it is.

For as long as the children from poorer families are more likely to underachieve then I think it's right to give poorer families extra support.

I absolutely disagree that targeting resources towards poorer families is giving up on them though - quite the opposite.

ILoveCoreyHaim Tue 24-Jun-14 08:56:05

Plus they don't get wrong for it which hey can't help if they Re in KS1.

ILoveCoreyHaim Tue 24-Jun-14 08:57:13

Ignore typos as on phone

MrsWinnibago Tue 24-Jun-14 08:59:14

The help at home I can't see being needed in most cases. We earn less than that but we certainly don't need intervention at home!

The extra support...why not? My children go to a very MC school and most of the kids are in private tuition. The standards are very high...I wouldn't object to extra maths or literacy.

Hakluyt Tue 24-Jun-14 09:01:11

"But I agree with you. The assumption is awful, and just separates the lower-income from everyone else in yet another way."

It may be awful, but the single biggest indicator of academic underachievement is parental poverty. Just have a look at how children on FSM achieve compared to their cohort. So targeting support on the children who need it most makes pragmatic sense.

Th problem is that people think of this as if it's about individuals rather than a "class" of people. Yes, loads of people on low income support their children well, and those children do well. And loads of people on higher incomes don't support their children. But as a class poor children do significantly worse academically than better off ones.

TheWordFactory Tue 24-Jun-14 09:01:57

A free lunch is a good thing to give a child, but sufficient education so he can buy his own lunch in future is much better...

tiggytape Tue 24-Jun-14 09:04:45

Zebra - the idea is that they are already separated and that this gap should be closed.
It may seem insulting (and factually incorrect) to say all poor children do less well at school but so many of them do.

It is one of the key factors for example that differentiates those who get 5 GCSEs and those who don't.
Only 36% of children on free school meals achieve 5 GCSEs at C or above, including English and Maths whereas 63% of pupils who are not eligible get those 5.

And that can happen even in the same school where middle and low income children mix but get totally different outcomes.

MorrisZapp Tue 24-Jun-14 09:06:05

It's not an assumption, it's sensible targeting of resources.

YouMakeMeHappy Tue 24-Jun-14 09:09:22

I'm not surprised at all that children who come from a family where nobody works don't do well!

Talk about setting a bad example.

Hakluyt Tue 24-Jun-14 09:10:10

"A free lunch is a good thing to give a child, but sufficient education so he can buy his own lunch in future is much better..."

Yep. The targeted resources the OP is objecting to is intended to provide both.

gordyslovesheep Tue 24-Jun-14 09:10:35

OP you may not like it but it's a fact - children in poor families do not do as well in education - this needs to change, I am sure you agree, so support is given

Hakluyt Tue 24-Jun-14 09:11:03

"I'm not surprised at all that children who come from a family where nobody works don't do well!

Talk about setting a bad example."

Shall I bother to comment on this bit of inanity?
No, I don't think I will.

gordyslovesheep Tue 24-Jun-14 09:13:03

no Hakluyt don't bother hmm

not even to point out that lots of poor families WORK - for NMW on shit hours

whois Tue 24-Jun-14 09:13:17

And your OP just goes to show that money doesn't bring insight eh OP?

Think about it for a few seconds. They aren't saying being poor means you are stupid, they are saying that living in poverty as a child means you are more likely to experience difficulties which make it harder to reach your full potential.

A child loving in poverty is much more likely to experience cramped or damp/cold conditions with nowhere to do their homework. Might be hungry - harder to concentrate at school. No resources at home sick as pens, paper. More likely to have some sort of chaotic home life - much harder to concentrate at school. Can't afford the correct uniform pieces - more likely to be bullied. Might not have access to washing machine/dryer so might wear dirty clothes - bullied. More likely to have parents who aren't as engaged with education. Etc.

Trying to break the cycle of poverty is a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now