To think that a pupil premium should be paid for children who live in home where none of the parents have qualifications

[ReallyTired]

I think that the education of the parents has a more significant outcome on a child's attainment than income. (Especially as many working poor don't have much more money than those on benefits.)

I feel that children who live in households where no adult has five GCSEs or equivalent should get extra support at school. Often these families aren't entitled to benefits because the parents do work so currently don't get the pupil premium.

It is harder for uneducated parents to support their children with homework than someone with a degree. Better eduated mothers are better at getting their children's needs met as they are often more articulate. For example making sure that statemented child gets what they are legally entitled to. (Getting a child assesed by an ed pych so that the child's dyslexia is spotted.)

Unskilled people often do physically hard work for very long hours for very little money. I believe that a child with unskilled working parents is at a major disadvantage as their parents are time poor as well as cash poor.

Or middle class people who know so much better than those on the receiving end of all these things, what they need and what’s stopping them getting it,

Suppose the problem at hand is the massive under-representation of first-generation students at selective universities. Who's better placed to comment on the requirements for admission: people at or who have experience of selective universities, or people who left school at sixteen and have had no contact with higher education since?

Why do you think the RG has had to published the Informed Choices book?

One of the reasons the RG published the informed choices book is because some smarter people actually listened as well as talked to people about the lies we get fed that stop any chance or hope of admission to most universities let alone RG, and fed back to inquiries about what was stopping many.

I have nothing against the MC, but if we're going to say there's two types of people on MN, I'm going to point at the third existing too.

The whole thing about being uneducated is just rubbish. My parents are highly intelligent people, without degrees and barely any O Levels between them. Our home was full of books, we visited museums and had the most fantastic discussions over dinner. They were more than able to help with homework and are articulate people who simply don't believe you have to go to university.

We were poor,didn't have a car for many many years or even a telephone (I am not yet 40 so this wasn't a very long time ago) I have learnt to be resilient, resourceful and intellectual- from them. Later in life my mother who worked her way up in her career became the only female managing director of a very large company. She is an excellent role model. As a result of this upbringing my children are high achievers but also realists because they understand how difficult life can be and how you can change or improve it if you wish to by either working hard straight from school or going to uni.

I didn't mind not having a financially rich life as a child but I do like having nice things and work hard to ensure my children do. On the other hand I like my children to work for the things they want and not expect it all on a plate. This is where my upbringing has made sure my children are not spoilt and totally dependant on me for everything. There are rather a lot of young people who cannot function without the latest this and that and parental assistance for everything. They are also given far to much money, a little less makes you work harder for things. As does getting the bus on your own rather than being chauffeured here and there.

I didn't go to uni myself and chose to study in other ways as well as travel, but have also managed to pursue my career interest and bring up articulate 'educated' children. DH doesn't have a degree and he is very high up in his chosen career yet still has time for our children. I help with the homework and actually think it's far easier than the type of work we used to do at school! I am not entirely sure how unskilled workers who work long hours wouldn't have time for their children but people who have degrees and work do? Surely it's the kind of work you do which impacts on time spent out of the home? Doctors for example. A lot of money also makes life easier but it certainly doesn't make everyone happy and can in fact complicate life. It is possible to be poorer but happier. You can be articulate and 'uneducated' it is possible to be aware of your children's needs and fight for them without a degree

The problem with treating children as individuals is that you then wait for them to fail. Targetting money at particular groups of children often saves money because intervention is done early. Children who don't experience failure don't become disillusioned with education. Disillusioned children grow up to be adults with very bad memories of school.

I feel the pupil premium is a great step forward as it is an attempt to break the cycle of povety. However we need to find a way to target other groups of children who are losing out.

In the past many people left school at 15. The reason that they had no qualifcations was that they simply did not take the exams rather than that they weren't capable. Many secondary modens did not offer education beyond 15 years old in the past. There was no financial help for low income families to complete their education. It is stupid to compare unqualified people of our parents' generation to our generation.

Children born in the 1970s were forced to stay on at school until 16. Later the law was changed to stop children leaving school on their 16th birthday. Post 1980 the majority of children were forced to sit GCSE whether they wanted to or not.

SantasSprouts - Why do you and many others on this thread keep going on about exceptions pretending that they prove the rule? An anecdote here and there doesnt prove anything

Ironically it shows a lack of education ;)

90% of parents without a university degree have children that also do not go to university. There are two possible reasons for this:

1. People who dont go to university are thick and have think children who are incapable of intelligent thought, studying or ambition
2. People who dont go to university live in an anti-academic culture and do not live in an environment that promotes education and makes it easy to achieve

2 is much nicer argument than 1, and is what I believe is the answer

Fail?

By what criteria? Early intervention often is very done early (from 2years going from some threads). This means intervention is done before failure, yet it is at this point the potential of failure is mooted as a very real possibility with very little evidence other than financial poverty. Learning is not linear, maybe there should be more evidence before intervention.

You only have to read the SN boards to rate the success of some types of intervention. (as a related point)

People who work in schools have already admitted PP funding is not used for the targeted group, because they do not necessarily need it.

Where does the actual truth lie?

One of the reasons the RG published the informed choices book is because some smarter people actually listened as well as talked to people about the lies we get fed that stop any chance or hope of admission to most universities let alone RG

"Lies": could you expand? You seem really quite cross about this.

Children born in the 1970s were forced to stay on at school until 16.

The raising of the school leaving age to 16 was set in motion in 1964, delayed in 1968 and and implemented 1 September 1972. You have to have been born before 1956 to have been able to leave school at 15.

I think your post OP (can you tell it's grating on me?!)lumps together all people who are 'uneducated' in the conventional manner as 'unable' or perhaps that we do not care about our children's education. I am not in the minority here. There are many people like me who are 'uneducated'. What you are trying to articulate and not very well IMO is the effects extreme poverty can have on children and it is the attitude towards education of some parents which in turn is affected.

Why do you and many others on this thread keep going on about exceptions pretending that they prove the rule? An anecdote here and there doesnt prove anything

It would be interesting to pop over to a special needs forum, produce one child who had succeeded academically without extra support but was subsequently diagnosed with dyslexia, and extrapolate from that to withdrawing all funding and support from those with dyslexia. Because that's the implication behind all those "I was raised by wolves but still had a PhD by 13" anecdotes. David Beckham's very rich, therefore everyone born in Hackney who ends up on benefits is just lazy? Keith Richards is very rich and has a twinkle in his eye, therefore heroin addiction is a good career move?

90% of parents without a university degree have children that also do not go to university.

The heart of the matter.

I'll try saying it again; if you want to advantage 'traveller' children, (rather than try and stop them being 'traveller' children) then don't remove traveller education services then give the money you saved to well meaning people who haven't a clue.

What gives you the idea that my ideal would be to remove traveller education services? I don't really understand that post. Travellers don't get allocated any extra money, in this area all they get is 'liaison' person who is great at encouraging them to send their children to school regularly, but that's pretty much it. Some of these children are already massively disadvantaged before they start school, even in comparison to children on FSMs, but they get fuck all in the way of extra funding.

It makes no sense.

Thanks curlew

It was supposed to be a bit tongue in cheek that comment but I should really have put a smily face on to make that clear

The OP did make the comment about people not having a degree not being able to help their children as much but I'm sure she didn't mean that no one without a degree can manage. And I know it's been talked through on the thread but I do like to comment on the OP

And I don't recall many people saying that education does not matter at all, just that it's not necessarily the be all and end all, sometimes it's the attitude towards learning that matter

More should be done to help those children who are struggling obviously, I'm just not sure that this is the best or easiest way

The problem with treating children as individuals is that you then wait for them to fail.

That is simply not true.

Teachers in reception can see who needs extra help and who is well supported at home, usually within the first term! There is absolutely no need to wait for children to fail before support is offered.

If children were treated more as individuals in the first place, they would have their needs identified and met before they are given a chance to fail.

If children were treated more as individuals in the first place, they would have their needs identified and met before they are given a chance to fail

Wholeheartedly agree.

Teachers in reception can see who needs extra help and who is well supported at home

This is not an either or. Children can need extra help, or more appropriately, teaching that is actually tailored to their needs, whilst receiving excellent support at home.

Mijas99- not simply an anecdote, part of real life hence so 'many' others adding them. Your ignorance shows a lack of education actually because of the way you have written your argument. I actually laughed out loud when I read it and your patronising tone towards me. My children do not live in an anti-academic culture nor do they live in an environment which does not promote education. My first child has chosen to go to uni,a very good one too. It is our attitude as parents and our home environment which has promoted this- she would tell you herself but ironically she would also tell me not to bother reading your post as you see to have quite a narrow view of people

not simply an anecdote, part of real life

That's what anecdotes are.

To trot out that well worn phrase, the plural of anecdote is not data.

Fair point capsium, it's not an either/or.

There are children that do have support at home but that still struggle, even when they don't have sen.

Making every single child a target pupil is the only way to stop children slipping through the net.

Making every single child a target pupil is the only way to stop children slipping through the net.

Funding it: discuss.

PP swings money towards schools with higher levels of deprivation (ie, schools where there are likely to be a larger number of children in need of extra support). It gives the school money to deliver that support. Pace JustGetting, the money is not ringfenced, but the school has to show good "narrowing the gap" data.

If you remove PP or something like it, there will be some schools which have higher levels of children in need of extra help (ie, tough comprehensives in inner-city areas with high levels of EAL, FSM and a mobile population) and some schools which have lower levels (super-selective grammars in shire towns, say).

Short of statementing being applied to everyone who requires help above the most trivial, what do you propose as a funding formula such that the money is sensibly allocated in the above examples. Don't say "both should have more money" because not even Ed Balls on ketamine is going to propose that.

I do think that all schools should be given more money, but if that's not on the agenda then stop trying to make schools be surrogate parents and make up for the failure of parents.

If the thing that is causing some schools to get significantly more money than others because of the PP, then that shows there is a social problem in the area, and addressing that has got to come before throwing money at a school.

A school has limits, there is only so much any school can do when they have contact with children for significantly less time than disengaged parents. There are already schools which have higher levels of children in need than other schools. What is happening is that the schools that don't get pp are falling apart, equipment and books are outdated, buildings are in need of repair. And the school budget is stretched to breaking point, so parents who already pay tax are asked to make donations to the school and to its PTA.

One of the problems with schools having a high level of FSMs and getting money for it is that although they might be able to show what they have done to improve outcomes for their children, what happens to the children who are on FSMs in a school where there are only two or three others that also get get them?

Friday I'm a bit more more than 'cross' that my families been blighted by this trickle down stuff and who gets to decide what’s good enough for us. We call our lot The ministry of disinformation because they've screwed us over so properly.

I and my kids been lied to again, and again, and again, about how people like us bridge the gap between illiteracy and a career in one generation and get to where we want to be, and sent of down dead ends to serve other peoples temporary needs instead, again and again.

Yes stupid undereducated me has fallen for so much and can now see that, and I'm now very angry about it, because even now that I've done something about everything, our way's still being potentially barred by a sharp elbowed blackmailing gatekeeper who doesn't care they're destroying everything.

Until I got access to the internet I didn't have any way of finding out the truth of all sorts of things from if writing was needed at secondary, if a child who didn't write maybe could be taught using a different way, Alphasmarts, statements and who did them and who could have one, breakfast clubs, homework clubs, how far behind a child needed to be to get help, that differention wasn't just easier, what actually matters in education, actually what education is, quality of some subjects, blanket policies, cover supervisors, LSA's, exams and exam boards, BTEC's getting you anywhere, what you needed to be able to do some things, further maths being eletism only, what calculator you needed, Brighthouse, right to try and go to colleges or uni, that it wasn't up to school, all sorts, and had to rely on the information handed down, and so much has turned out to be downright lies, the rest just often misleading.

Yes people are going to sneer at me for not knowing those things, but none of the people I knew, knew them either, that's the reality of not having an education, you rely on the people who do to be hones. We knew other things fitted to the lives we came from, not the ones we wanted our kids to be going to.

If I’m told something is a fact or legal, I’m not supposed to be able to see or find out it’s not, and I’m supposed to accept being told it is and accepting what I’m told, even if it’s not in my dc’s interest, and if I don't and go back back to court, they can take away the funding for education and run us out of time.
Why is it ok to do this to me and mine? because we fit a set of boxes that mean they dare because no one will listen unless we parade ourselves over the daily mail.

I'm not cross, I'm murderous, because I can't change it, just watch them labelled as helping us while they do the opposite. No I don't want to see the sort of schools and LEAs who treat us like this given more money to 'help' us with, I wan't them bloody sacked but I'll settle for them having less power to stop people like my kids getting where they want to go.

I have decided that having a degree can make some people very snotty.