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?

Because I think I'm talking oranges and you're talking apples. It doesn't matter if the current system is effective if another system could potentially be at least as effective without the added negative labels. To me this makes sense.

Right.

Poverty is the single most accurate indicator of academic under achivevment.

How are you going to identify poor children? Check their shoes while they are doing PE and male a list of Clarks/Tesco/Primark? Check lunchboxes? Waitrose/Tesco/Iceland?

Academic underachievement is an even better indicator of academic underachievement. At least I would think so.

That's not how it works. But hey ho. I tried. Please will someone else try to explain? I'm obviously getting it wrong.

It's the definition of poverty that's wrong. There are areas of towns that are judged as being the poverty areas and that may be true. But the rest is hidden. You wouldn't have looked at my family when I was a kid but we had no money. We had food and looking at our m&s and JL clothes and uniform we wouldn't have been on the radar. But if I was to tell you the only reason our clothes came from there was because my parents could use a store card and therefore make minimum payments which were cheaper than clothes anywhere else and they couldn't afford to buy clothes for us otherwise. A relative paid for my bed. There are hundreds of kids in all areas of a town where money is sooooo tight the parents barely eat because dad was made redundant and they are coping off one wage and falling behind and are tied into rental agreements or mortgages etc.

What I mean is there will be children living in poverty who don't appear that way. I think by focussing on the obvious ones that others are sadly being over looked. Looking at one aspect (a tick in a box on a register) is causing other children in need to be over looked and that needs addressing.

Curlew you're doing fine, some people don't get / believe in the validity of statistical correlations on a macro level leading to grassroots intervention by those who understand their student body's needs

I also don't really understand why not but its an opinion that they are allowed to have even if its wrong

Yes there is poverty beyond the narrow confines of the FSM qualification - that is absolutely and heartbreakingly true

FSM data is cheap and easy to obtain and given it works in showing those students likely to be less succesful why should the system be overhauled? Why go to the extra cost and change something that works putting even more work on schools?

Its not just about lack of money but lack of aspirations, work ethic, parental input etc. If all of these are seen in the majority of FSM data then its obviously the best one to use. There will always be some children who reach their targets or exceed when on FSM but the majority wont and thats where the focus will be to try and "narrow the gap" as much as possible.

I don't think looking at other readily available data instead the fsm would be more expensive. It just seems such an unnecessarily blunt instrument, and like I said, adds and gives official validity to the discourse of benefit bashing. But I can agree to disagree. Apples and oranges..

And I think what the fsm pp automatic link does is embellish and highlight the "gap" instead of narrowing it. It would be narrowed by removing such a link, which suggests automatic academic disadvantage. Which is not to say that funding should not be available for tutoring etc. should it be needed.

My children get free school meals and no one thinks of then or myself any differently.

I also went through primary and secondary school on free school meals and no one ever said anything. We used to get an orange ticket to hand in at the till. It might have changed now though, it was 10 years ago that I was in school x

And I think what the fsm pp automatic link does is embellish and highlight the "gap" instead of narrowing it. It would be narrowed by removing such a link [citation needed]

And I think what the fsm pp automatic link does is embellish and highlight the "gap" instead of narrowing it. It would be narrowed by removing such a link, which suggests automatic academic disadvantage. Which is not to say that funding should not be available for tutoring etc. should it be needed.

This makes absolutely no sense, please explain

It's my own thinking, friday, and it is very logical don't you think? I'm sure I'd find a similar citation from a (another) great thinker should I care to..

I worked as dinner lady for 6 months and I never knew who was on FSM for sure. Eventually because of MN threads I worked out a handful of the kids who must be FSM, most others I couldn't be sure about. None of DC even know the phrase "free school meals."

I can also think of a few who should have been FSM, probably, but weren't.

It means what it says. To officially indicate that being eligible for fsm is to be academically disadvantaged, IMO adds (even if unintentionally) to the stereotype of the "stupid unemployed living off the state with no educational aspirations", and similar discourses, which further widen the gap between the employed and unemployed and the poor vs. the well off. Unless you think these assumptions are correct for this diverse group of people, it's unfair and stigmatising to the ones not fitting the stereotype. It is also one of the reasons why people could be put off applying for fsm.

FSM is an incomplete indicator of poverty and disadvantage, that is a given but it is the best we have

In 2011 57.9% of students getting FSM acheived level 4 or above in English and maths, 20 percentage points less than those not receiving FSM (77.9%)

In 2012 65.7% of students getting FSM acheived level 4 or above, almost 17% below the equivalent non FSM group (82.5)

There are other groups worth looking at gender and ethnicity but the most marked difference is those who are economically disadvantaged

It doesn't mean if you get FSM you'll fail, just that economic disadvantage should be addressed academically to ensure students reach their potential.

"It's my own thinking, friday, and it is very logical don't you think?"

No. Your claim appears to be that if we stopped analysing for sub-populations that are disadvantaged, then that disadvantage would cease. That's completely illogical.

But given the improvement is based on incomplete information couldn't that then lead to a false sense of security.

That the gap is closing whereas in fact it only appears to be doing so because the amount of pupils in disadvantaged situations who don't qualify is getting greater therefore lowering class averages.

I'm not sure I've explained that very well but I hope you can figure out what I mean.

I guess what I'm getting at is, why can't the actual academic results of schools and (at school level) individuals be looked at instead of assuming and guessing (however good the indicators)? The data is already there and not that hard to analyse. The unwillingness of the government to do that almost seems like a wilful act of trying to "shame" the poor. I know that the current system might well be discreet and practical (with absolutely no shame attached) in the vast majority of schools, but the mere existence of this set-up sits badly with me. The reason why the government won't do targeted measures based on ethnicity, even if they could be well founded, is due to the fear of being perceived as racist. Well, I see this current set-up being a bit "poorist".

It is possible for a child to underachieve without being on the bottom table. Often children on fsm are very bright. In fact children on fsm in super selective grammars get the pp. (Ie. help with paying for the geography field trip or materials needed for CDT)

Different children have different needs which is why schools have freedom in how the spend the pp. The pp is designed to help where poverty is a barrier to learning.

Families that have claimed means tested income support have very little in the way of assets. Unemployment can quickly bring a family to its knees. I am not sure that 6 years of pp is justified though. It is possible for a family to go from being on income support to being a high rate tax payer in four years. Help should only be provided if needed.

"What I mean is there will be children living in poverty who don't appear that way. I think by focussing on the obvious ones that others are sadly being over looked. Looking at one aspect (a tick in a box on a register) is causing other children in need to be over looked and that needs addressing."

But focussing on the easily and cheaply identifiable groups attracts the pupil premium to a school, which is good for everyone.

The reason why the government won't do targeted measures based on ethnicity, even if they could be well founded, is due to the fear of being perceived as racist. Well, I see this current set-up being a bit "poorist".

^^ this I agree with. Under no other circumstances no matter how true they were, would such sweeping generalisations be acceptable. In fact MN is usually do dead against generalisations even when it's proven.

"guess what I'm getting at is, why can't the actual academic results of schools and (at school level) individuals be looked at instead of assuming and guessing (however good the indicators)? The data is already there and not that hard to analyse"

But doesn't that mean that the kids have to have already failed before they are identified?

I find your analysis bizarre. Data must be aggregated to develop national policy but the practical implemented is at a grass roots level, so it is abut individuals. Nobody says if you are FSM eligible your child will fail, just that we must do better by students who are economically disadvantaged as the data shows us that fewer of them succeed academically. We need to do our utmost to level the playing field.

We also look at SEN vs non SEN, ethnicity and gender

But as you say apples and oranges.