AIBU to think there is a stigma attached to taking up Free School Meals?

[cingolimama]

Would really value MNers experience here. DH and I have had a pretty disastrous year financially (redundancy for DH, drying up of contracts for me). However we are both working hell for leather to turn this around. In the meantime we're eligible for FSM, which frankly would be a big help. I also know that it helps the school gain a Pupil Premium.

But I'm a bit nervous about this. I don't want my daughter to be "targeted for help" as I believe anyone benefiting from FSM is (but perhaps I'm being idiotic - DD could surely use a booster in maths dept.) I also don't want any social stigma attached to this. It's a mixed school socially, but the majority is very middle class. Has anyone had any negative experience of taking this up? Or AIBU and it will all be fine?

As an aside, given that money is there as a result to help the children, and the work is being put in to close the gaps, why is the % of kids on FSM still included on ofsted reports. If schools are developing systems (mostly) to ensure that the kids can't be told apart from those who aren't, and are doing their best to persuade parents to take them up, how are parents meant to not see it as a negative point if its there in black and white that the numbers are above average or whatever.

I don't see it as a negative. I do think that the support should be there regardless for ALL the kids as you don't have to be poor to be unsupported in the education or neglected emotionally (can't be helped sometimes with working situations). But none of that is included. Just seems that it creates the negative view by being put on the reports.

I just don't think it helps to "bridge the gap" when you the government officially talks about a fairly random group of people, who happen to be in the same financial situation at any given time period, as if they were completely uniform, however strong the correlations. Therein lies the danger of stereotyping and labelling. Would it not be more cost-effective to allocate more money to schools where academic performance levels are low? Also, schools should be able to secure funding for extra tutoring of individual children in need. Surely, that would be the logical way to proceed?

The PP would be helpful, if it was there solely to provide uniforms, money for clubs and trips, etc. Those are the things that all poor children would benefit from.

But the point of the pupil premium is that its used to fund programmes on a local school level based on need so yes it can be used for breakfast clubs and trips and uniform but also to fund specialist counselling services, outreach, educational materials and packages etc

Those who grow up in areas of mass generational social deprivation have far more challenges than clubs, trips and uniform unfortunately, it is naive to believe there's an even playing field if you just provide the obvious

Pupil premium is decided on a governmental level but the usage of the funds is decided at grass roots on a school by school level

It's not perfect but I don't see how it could be improved

I think it's strange to lump together all the poor/unemployed (whether temporary or long term) and assume that they are disadvantaged and in need of counselling, outreach, and the like. When, in fact, they might just need a bit of help with buying an uniform and money for a school trip until dad or mum gets a new job. If extra help is needed in schools in particularly deprived areas, then surely that is going to be shown by the low level of academic achievement, absence levels, etc. So, surely we should look at those as indicators for need of extra education and outreach funding. As well providing funding for individual children in need, whether "disadvantaged", in the way the current government sees it, or not.

"As well AS", that should be, of course.

When I was growing up (in a very poor part of town), I used to think that the kids on 'Free School Dinners' actually got 'Three School Dinners'. I always saw them as privileged compared to me only having one. Until that is, my mum lost her job and I joined them...

The finding is meant to bridge the gap in results, handing out uniform or paying for trips wont do that. CB can pay for uniform and trips cn be paid for in instalments. Its not a great deal of money per child (used to be £200 but now around £400) and unless a high percentage are on FSM it likely not to even cover a TA's salary or two.

I do think it should be included in Ofsted as parents want a clear view of the school and its results. You cant get a clear view of the teaching standards and results without all the data. It also has to be clearly shown how they have spent the money on the school wbsite etc so that parents and ofsted etc can see.

I do agree with toys to an extent. Being poor and the challenges that go with that, yes of course that would inhibit children to reach their full potential. But there are challenges that children face who aren't in that group. Those children who's parents work or on a high income. Having to be dropped off here there and everywhere to people looking after them. That can't be helped either. Those who spend their time split between separate parents. They may not be hungry or cold , but can their grandma help them with their homework? Did yey leave their books at their mums? does dd want to spend the only two days he gets with his kids doing school work? Has their friend with four kids of her own got time to hear them read. What about the nanny stuck in traffic and picked them up late so everything's a rush and that project gets forgotten. The rush, the confusion, erratic meal times etc can all impact in a child's performance in class and all are problems faced by everyone. (Ok not the nanny bit but you see the point I hope)

What I mean is I'm sure that even the richest kids have plenty stacked against them. Ok some may be able to afford tutors but not all.

In all honesty I expect there are very few children who don't have obstacles to overcome. To narrow it down to those on FSM just seems odd. Not saying that they shouldn't get the help just that its naive to think that other kids don't have problems and could use the extra observations and support just as much.

The fact remains that, while all groups obviously face their challenges, children from poor/disadvantaged backgrounds statistically do worse than other groups. That is an incontrovertible fact. Proven over andnovernagain in cohort studies. So it doesn't matter people say it's strange, or unfair or wrong or whatever to focus a little help on those prticular children, the fact remains that it makes a significant difference to their outcomes.

The children who are in that cohort but who are streaking ahead aren't going to be offered extra lessons- but the ones that aren't are, and they benefit hugely from them. How is this even remotely controversial?

i dont think my children were 'disadvantaged' when i claimed for FSM, they had been read to endlessly, had a choice of books and drawing/writing equipment, and had travelled across Europe and had some knowledge of other languages/cultures. Which is a lot more than some other, financially better off childdren had, in my observation.
so the assumption that FSM = disadvantaged pisses me right off.

I'm not saying its controversial. But I just don't understand how all that stands between two children getting the extra support so desperately needed, who are equally struggling , both who's families can't afford heating or food or clothes, is a FSM.

No, your child wasn't disadvantaged.

But many are. And they do not achieve their potential. I just can't understand why you don't want those children to get the help they need. You children don't. Wonderful. Why stand in other children's way because you get bent out of shape but the very suggestion that yours might be......gasp.... whisper......disqdvantqged?

"so the assumption that FSM = disadvantaged pisses me right off."

No one is saying that there's a strict equality. The claim is that recipients of FSM are disproportionately likely to be disadvantaged. That is absolutely incontrovertible. Pointing to exceptions does not disprove correlations, as no-one is claiming that the correlation is perfect.

Both my DC get FSM and I don't think they even realise that I don't pay as its all done through the office staff.

Another one who gets pissed off with FSM = disadvantaged.

Both my DC read loads and I am very involved with their education and both DC are doing well at school.

"Another one who gets pissed off with FSM = disadvantaged.

Both my DC read loads and I am very involved with their education and both DC are doing well at school."

Good. So they won't need any extra help. Fantastic. The school can get on with helping those that do. Who are disproportionately represented among the cohort that are eligible for FSM. What is so difficult about this????????

Nothing is difficult about it at all I never said it was...

However, why should my children automatically be at a disadvantage because they get FSM?

curlew: It is an unnecessary, if founded in statistics, assumption/connection to make. There are many more efficient ways of distributing money for education directly to the ones in need. Officially making the connection that everyone in a tight financial situation at any given, even short, period of time, is disadvantaged and needs extra tutoring etc. is only bound to strengthen the societal discourse of benefit bashing, which helps nobody (those who want to take unfair advantage of the benefits given to the unemployed etc. won't care, and those who already feel ashamed about being poor will feel even worse through the assumption that their children are now officially and automatically classed as disadvantaged in a multitude of ways, i.e. not only monetary).

I assume, curlew, that the people who think it's wrong to use the correlation between FSM and other forms of disadvantage as a means of targeting interventions would also argue strongly against any form of intervention to improve the career and educational opportunities of young single mothers. After all, JK Rowling has done alright for herself.

In other news, my grandfather smoked eighty a day and lived to be ninety, so all that stuff about cigarettes being bad for you is wrong.

Okay, my son is entitled to FSM, I claim for them but send him in with a packed lunch.

Is he disadvantaged?

Well the reason he is entitled to FSM is that I currently don't work. I don't work as he is autistic and needs me around. So you could argue that he IS disadvantaged and despite being read to from almost birth has struggled.

I am glad that there is system FOR increasing the amount of money targeted to children on FSM, they CAN be at more disadvantage.

"There are many more efficient ways of distributing money for education directly to the ones in need. "

So tell us a few of them. Focus on "efficient", too, given that targeting based on FSM is a very cheap way (requires no extra data gathering) of doing substantially better than random.

"

Schools' academic results, (unauthorised) absence levels, etc. Shouldn't be hard and makes total sense.

Also there should be funding easily available for individual children in clear need, as applied by schools whether they get fsm or not.

"However, why should my children automatically be at a disadvantage because they get FSM?"

They aren't. I'm presuming that, because you are posting about it that you don't think they are. So good. They don't need any extra help.

But a lot are.

"Schools' academic results, (unauthorised) absence levels, etc. Shouldn't be hard and makes total sense."

But statistically, children who are entitled to FSM do worse than those hat don't. This is incontrovertible, proved time and time again. Before you post again, have a look at your school's league tables. Look at the "narrowing the gap" figures.

Why the hmm?