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.

All these stories on this thread of people doing well despite having no qualifications is great, but the reality for young people nowadays is very different compared to what it was like even just a decade ago.

There is a huge surplus of unskilled workers nowadays, and I firmly believe that school leavers do need to have good qualifications. Even degree educated people are finding it hard to get a decent job with prospects, so people that leave school without even having good GCSEs is going to struggle in life unless they have something special, a lot of luck, or rich parents.

Coldlightofday Tue 10-Dec-13 20:31:58
The pupil premium doesn't get ring fenced for individual pupils. It is used for a range of interventions that have to show impact for children receiving FSMs. Actually, if a school targets it cleverly, it benefits lots of pupils who are underachieving.

Just as there are FSM children who do fine with nothing additional, there are non FSMs children who need extra.

Implied here. Especially with the 'clever' targeting.

Both my children's schools heavily target the pp. I thought schools had to show that particular children made maximum progess. At my children's schools even high achieving fsm children are given extra help. Ie. gifted child would be given enrichment activites with the fsm.

WooWooOwl

*The only good thing about the way the pp is implemented is that schools can decide how the money is best spent.

If a school does use the money to employ an extra member of staff to do small group work and the small group then includes children who get FSMs and some who don't, I can't see the problem. The target children are benefitting, and so are a couple of others who need help. I find it hard to understand why anyone would begrudge help to a child who needs it just because they aren't on FSMs and because the government decided to use a very blunt instrument to decide who is most deserving of help.*

Implied here. Shows this is seen as the preferred practice.

As far as I see it the practice itself is not the problem, however PP funds, which are targeted at children who are in receipt of FSM, are not being spent exclusively on this target group. This needs to be made very clear. In all the documentation. Otherwise measuring the effectiveness of interventions for this target group becomes very problematic / meaningless.

Could you explain how 'clever' targeting works then,Cold, I am at a loss in that I really am not able to imagine the nitty gritty of the spending path.

We work long hours in manual jobs and are on a substantionally higher income than the fsm threshold. Its usually the households where no one work for many years that make no/little effort with homework/learning.

At my children's schools even high achieving fsm children are given extra help. Ie. gifted child would be given enrichment activites with the fsm.

That's one of its clear purposes.

"Why does the local comp have to switch to only that set of qualifications, though, is there a reason why can't it do both, and tell the truth about the difference between a physics degree and a media degree and educate people to know what the different options really mean, and if a BTEC in law might be a good road to become a paralegal but would end any hope of being a solicitor? "

Which set of qualifications? Sorry- have I missed at bit?

Cold Are the children who are in receipt FSM and who do not require additional pastoral support, behaviour support etc traceable in the Widening the Gap figures?

Absolutely, coldlightofday. People forget that targeting groups of underachieving children benefits everyone.

^As a sub set of the target group, not individuals, of course.

X post. My last comment refers to my previous post.

Friday you give my mother far too much credit. Having lived through the arguments, there was absolutely no evidence my mother did any thinking whatsoever! My mother had far madder ideas than that about my A-levels...

As it was, I made compromises for the sake of a semblance of familial peace that I shouldn't have done (like law instead of further maths). Fortunately I had some moral support in the form of multiple horrified maths teachers, a science teacher and fellow students, who had similar ambitions to me. (Some of whom are still pissed off on my behalf years later. ) so plain a-level maths and my science didn't get replaced. I eventually decided a career in maths wasn't for me, but A-level maths was always a good safe choice, so I don't regret it!

Over a decade later, I get why she was so opposed to me doing A-level maths. (And also against people going to university) It was more about her having failed O-level maths and having dropped out of sixth form than anything to do with what I said or did. She felt threatened.

Capsium, the post of mine that you quoted does not say that the PP isn't used for the target group. It said that in that example of a way the PP could be used, the target children will benefit along with a couple of others.

That is not the same thing.

Freudian slip there?

However if every child accesses pastoral support, how is it that the PP funds this? How is the evidence gained as to its particular effectiveness for the target group shown in the figures?

WooWoo it sort of is the same thing if the funds are not spent exclusively on the target group.

"We work long hours in manual jobs and are on a substantionally higher income than the fsm threshold. Its usually the households where no one work for many years that make no/little effort with homework/learning."

annieorangutan I am sure you are right. I imagine that you pay a huge wack of tax as well as not getting fsm.

Having money and time makes it easier for children to have interesting extra curricular activites. (For example individual music lessons or swimming lessons) Better off parents can pay for tutoring if they want their child to do the eleven plus.

I feel there should be some way of leveling the playing field for the working poor as well.

curlew

Which set of qualifications? Sorry- have I missed at bit?

See my proposal at 16:54:11.

No, it isn't capsium. It's not the same at all, because in my example, the target children were benefiting.

And other children should benefit anyway, it's not their fault if they are struggling and their parents earn more than the threshold.

I'm really struggling to see your POV on that tbh, and I'm wondering if you are projecting from an experience of your own.

Could you honestly look at a class of children, hear the teacher give you a list of children that need intervention, and then tell half the children on that list they aren't worth it because their parents earn the wrong amount.

Imagine it were the other way round, and the children you were deeming as undeserving were the ones whose parents earned too little. Does the idea still sit as comfortably with you then?

But what exactly is extra Cold in terms of what children in receipt of FSM can receive compared to what every child in the school you work in can receive?

At a working level is not the PP funding just going in the general pot, but being accounted for separately?