To think that this is wrong and on par with benefit fraud?

[littleplasticinedinosaur]

School that my child goes to has asked in the newsletter that every parent who is entitled to free school meals applys, even if they don't need it or they continue to bring sandwiches, because the school will receive a large sum of money each year.

I think that this is totally wrong, and the school shouldn't be profitting in this way. The money is supposed to be there to ensure that children living on the poverty line get a meal. And if the parents don't want or need it then the money should go back into the pot for something else.

Yes, I can believe that quite easily sadly, I'm sure there are a lot of schools that have to use pupil premium money just to balance the books.

I wonder if the heads are actually to blame, or if they are so underfunded for the basics, they don't have much choice.

Quite, about the underfunding. That's why I don't really feel inclined to rock the boat. It's definitely happening though.

I think so too, but I'm not sure of the sort of things they are supposed to be spending the money on.

The intention is that they spend the money on directly targeted help to support the pupil in question. Whatever the child is perceived to need. By definition that won't include siphoning £430 into the general budget, since that isn't then targeted, it's diffused.

Schools are not required to spend each pupils allocation specifically on that student. They can spend the money however they like. However, they are supposed to account for how it's spent, and demonstrate that it has been used for its intended purpose, which us to support pupils from lower income backgrounds reach the same levels of attainment as their wealthier peers.

What Rooble said.

yellowtip - Pupil Premium for FSM is not ringfenced to the child, and has never really been intended to do so. It is for the school to spend as they see fit to raise attainment.

Pupil Premium for LAC is supposed to be spent specifically on the child the funding has been received for, but that is the spirit of the guidance, not the wording, which is in fact somewhat nebulous.

littleplasticinedinosaur You should be more enraged at schools that hang on to pupils until census day, then immediately push disruptive or LAC children out once they have the annual pupil funding for them
That is on a par with benefit fraud, downright disingenuous. Census date has moved this year to 2nd week of October... my department has been inundated this week with referrals of pupils that have mysteriously all gained behavioural issues this week

The thing about FSM though, is that it isn't just about the money. It's also about the stats - schools are evaluated on a range of things and one of them is % of kids entitled to free school meals - but this stat is obtained through counting the number claiming not the number entitled. AIUI from SMT friends it's a fairly important metric even if you don't take the ££ into account.

Schools are going to be required to publish details of how the Pupil Premium is spent, so you will be able to obtain this information and reassure yourselves that it is spent wisely. It's not ring-fenced for the individual child, but you would expect to see it being spent on resources, for example to deliver interventions to support small groups and individual children. Honestly, with the way funding for schools is going schools need all the help they can get, and helping the school will help your children.

Why do people so often assume that schools don't use budgets wisely? It's bloody daft. If you don't trust the management of your school do something about it - apply to be a governor and give up some of your spare time to ensuring that things are done properly.

No it's not a benefit thread. But I don't understand why the school should claim money for food that's not being eaten

They aren't - school dinners do not cost a school £5 a day. It is, as has been pointed out, the pupil premium.

The school cannot say "We have 90 children entitled to FSM, but only 20 get them", they can only say "we have X number who get FSM"

So the school might be entitled to 90 x £800, but if only 20 children apply for FSM they are only entitled to 20 x £800.

By parentws applying - if the numbers are as above, that's about £50 000 extra funding.

Schools need money, every penny they can get.

Along with FSM, they also need a lot of people to declare themselves travellers - that brings in another bounty - plus ESL is also another good one for extras.

And yes parents should claim it, because if some misguided sense of pride, their child may not be fed adequately. Ther are stil some people for whom the benefit culture is an anathema and would rather keep up the pretense of wealth

Schools get about £1000 per child towards the budget whether you claim the meals or not that is extra if you use them.

Our school gets a lot of pupil premium as it is also given when a parent of a child is in the armed forces and we have about 80% of our school with a parent or two in the armed forces.

Last year the extra money funded a teaching assistant who was there to help new children arriving settle in quickly and this year that funding has been found from somewhere else with the pupil premium going to cover the cost of all school trips.

Pupil premium is given according to the number of pupils whose parents register that they are ENTITLED to school meals, not the number of pupils who eat them!
It is a way of assessing need, not a head count of who doesn't want to take sandwiches.
It's currently just over £600 per pupil entitled to FSM, and it is hoped it will rise in 2014 to £900.
Schools are losing a considerable amount of potential funding because parents don't register their entitlement, and some of the reasons why they don't are clear from this thread. I think as parents we owe it to our children to be educated about things like this, a simple Google search will tell you all you need to know. Op - why didn't you find out what it was the school was trying to do before deciding it was the equivalent to benefit fraud??
So people - it's not fraud to help your child's school to get the funding that it is entitled to and that the government considers it needs. Just do it - please!

"And yes parents should claim it, because if some misguided sense of pride, their child may not be fed adequately."
This funding isn't to pay for free school meals.

The school isnt claiming money for food that isnt eaten... they are claiming the premium that is payed to the school for 'disadvantaged' children ie those entilted to school meals. You have to register but dont have to claim the meal.

School will only bee re-imbursed for meals eaten.... its a seperate issue to theis premium. Our school also has a premium for service children

Robyn I think some people may not claim because they simply don't want to claim. That can be quite distinct from wanting to 'keep up a pretence of wealth'. Just because a parent is on that level of income for whatever reason doesn't take away the individual's power to make a valid judgment for his or her self.

I'm aware that the money doesn't have to be spent on the pupil directly but I'm also aware that there are schools where a child whose parent has been cajoled into claiming has seen no vestige of any form of support put in place. The money is simply plugging a hole in the budget and is of no more benefit to that child than to the others in it's class who are hugely well off. That seems wrong to me but I don't wish to whistle blow especially, because I'm aware funding is harsh.

Just to add, this money also goes to the families of FSM children to help with trips etc (you know the bit on the letter from school 'if you need any help with paying please contact the school').

Re the school trips thing - that actually seriously pisses me off. If there wasn't FSM premium money to help the families 'most in need' perhaps they would devise more sensibly priced trips for everyone. Or, no trips. which would be fine by me. The level of expense already this term on school trips (I have 3DCs) is ridiculous. I think that the trips are almost without exception of dubious (or definitely NO) educational benefit. And yet the kids all feel pressured into going on them (DD1 told me totally seriously, that she wouldn't get an A in history unless she went on the trip she has been on this week). I'm sure her teacher didn't actually say that (her teacher is very nice and very sensible) but there is a mood music in the year group that you have* to go. And frankly it's money I could very very well have spent elsewhere.

I don't think it does go on school trips though. That cash comes out of SPA money. At least that's how it is in my school. That's for the educational trips where they are asking for a donation. Not the pricey ski trips.

I think any school that doesn't request parents to claim is being run by financial incompetents.

MordionAgenos Blame the coach companies for the cost of school trips; it costs us thousands of pounds to ferry our children to the local swimming pool, which is a compulsory part of the curriculum!

Every trip I have ever organised has been of educational benefit to the children, and what i more, I can still remember trips from when I was 5/6 years old myself - from visits to the war museum to art trips to science experiments at the local university. I remember it all, even when I can't remember much else about what we were doing at school that year!

I think you are underestimating the educational value of trips and how long teachers spend trying to cut costs/find alternatives. Of course we could just abandon all trips, as you say, but many children would miss out - especially the visual and kinaesthetic learners who aren't inspired by spending day in, day out in the same four walls.

Our school uses pupil premium on intervention groups for children who are struggling - literacy, numeracy, social skills etc.

Dont you think schools need money OP?

my sons school do the same. I don't see the problem to be honest?