to think that expensive school trips should be banned

[Nicola10]

Year 8 pupils have, today, left for a school trip to France. Very exciting for them, yes, considering that they will be going to a theme park, as well as educational stuff. But, for the rest of the kids, whose parents could not afford it, including my twins, they have to do normal lessons.

The cost for each child is £400 each!

I thought the funding followed the pupil, rather than staying with the school, in recognition in part that children who claimed FSM in primary often don't in secondary, even if they're still eligible.

It does - if you've claimed FSM in the past 6 years, the funding goes to your current school.

It just doesn't need to be spent on that particular kid; HT is accountable as to how the funds have been spent, so they can't just blow them on replacing the Goble with a proper diamond-studded doorstop, but they do have a fair degree of autonomy as to where the money is allocated.

Jenai - I don't think my last post was quite right, was it? I am not sure what I was thinking (or overthinking) but it clearly didn't come out right!

I'll try again to make the point but not get myself confused. Schools can still claim the PP even if the child hasn't had FSM whilst they have been at a school so long as they have had the FSM in the last 6 yrs. So yes, the funding does go with the child but I think what I mean is that if the child has not had FSM for a while and may no longer be eligible the funding there isn't necessarily the need to attach to that child. If the PP is given even for half a term of FSM then it could have been the result of a blip in a childhood that was otherwise not disadvantaged iyswim. On the other hand FSM are under reported at secondary school so the 6 yr rule would catch a lot of those children who are disadvantaged but don't have FSM. The HT might also know of families who could have claimed for FSM but never had for whatever reason so they might benefit from the money too.

Being as it isn't always easy or even right to attach the PP to one particular pupil the HT can use it as they see fit for a group of pupils who may or may not be the children named as in receipt of the PP but who need help so long as the attainment gap is closing. I can see how that might meaning spending money on school trips if it ensures that nobody is left out for an educational opportunity. Personally I think that a trip abroad might be justified for language courses too but it would be pushing it to send children abroad for anything else using PP money. That is just my opinion though.