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.

WooWoo I would just like more transparency.

Transparency is a good thing, and ime the information is there, it's just not that easily available to parents.

Extra in terms of what children on FSMs could get will vary depending on the school they are at, but the immediate thing that springs to mind is £300 worth of residential school trip, as that is available at my dcs school.

Reallytired - No we dont pay much tax we are on lowish hourly rates so get lots of financial help. Im on near minimum wage but our dd has had individual swimming lessons for over 2 years, its only cheap.

Our children do many extra curricular activities. We have lots of time to do homework/clubs even doing over full time hours each.

But what exactly is extra Woo 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?

Is this transparent?

X post. However residential trips do not particularly impress me. I am more concerned with educational benefits...

So what enhanced levels of support, guidance and care can those in receipt of FSM receive compared to those not in receipt of FSM? How does this manifest? (As an extra)

No, I'm reading and you haven't actually answered my question.

Oh and how does the way you 'embed' allow for wider benefit?

You seem to be looking for one single and definitive answer to a question that has too many varied and complicated answers to be able to provide that.

Things like residential trips have an impact educationally because they make a difference to a child. Schools have to be granted a certain amount of trust with this money, but I don't have a problem with that.

Just how many variables do you expect the department for education to measure?

I just would rather the money was spent on actual education rather than residential trips, which tbh are only suitable for some children.

In a lean economy education should actually be about education. Trips are extras, of educational benefit, perhaps but not actual education. How many parents would love for their children to have time off school for an educational trip but are denied this?

^ that they take their own children on.

The simple answer is that children who are in receipt of FSM receive no additional educational benefits, compared to children not in receipt of FSM, from PP funding, if spent in the way you describe Cold.

The simple answer is that children who are in receipt of FSM receive no additional educational benefits, compared to children not in receipt of FSM, from PP funding

In which case, the heads are risking their careers, because Ofsted are putting "narrowing the gap" (sometimes "closing the gap") front and centre in the new inspection framework, along with clear accountability for the use of PP to improve matters. A school in receipt of significant pupil premium funding which does not show clear improvements in relatively short timeframes will find itself in special measures with the head out on their ear.

Ofsted last month:

"The attainment gap between students supported by the pupil premium and others has narrowed in English but widened in mathematics. In the last validated GCSE results in 2012, students eligible for support through the pupil premium were on average a grade lower than other students in mathematics and over a half a grade lower in English...Leaders’ evaluation of the effectiveness of the use of pupil-premium funding in closing gaps in attainment for students known to be eligible for free school meals is vague. A clear breakdown is given of the ways these funds are used but there is no sharp evaluation of the impact in order to make sure that the funds are used to best effect. As a result, leaders and governors are unclear about how supported students are performing and what difference the funding is making to their ????achievement."

The head and both the head's deputies have resigned. The governing body is in the process of being dissolved. Yes, there were other problems, and yes, this was only one of a succession of issues any one of which would have resulted in special measures. But it's ludicrous to suggest that this is some sort of unaudited slushfund that can be spent on paint and parties.

it's ludicrous to suggest that this is some sort of unaudited slushfund...

I never suggested it was friday. My posts were only in response to others who had posted concerning how PP is spent and their responses to the questions that I asked as an attempt to clarify.

... Ofsted are putting "narrowing the gap" (sometimes "closing the gap") front and centre in the new inspection framework, along with clear accountability for the use of PP to improve matters

This suggests there has been problems with this, at least historically...

I do suspect that many of the objections to extra funding for disadvantaged children of any sort is fuelled by outrage that another child is getting something the objector's child isn't. There seems to be a universal inability to see that it's trying to give another child something the objector's child had already. I have even seen this (not on this thread, but on others, and sadly in real life) people being harumphy about one to one support for children with AEN. "Well, we'd all like one to one, wouldn't we?"

This suggests there has been problems with this, at least historically...

Hardly. Pupils Premium was agreed in April 2011 and started to be paid to schools in September 2011. The earliest any results could be evaluated would be September 2012, and in practice for KS4 (which is the real focus for narrowing the gap) the first set of validated GCSE results weren't available until January 2013. The current Ofsted inspection framework was published in July 2013, and was the first update for several years. Crucially, it was the first substantial (and substantive) update since the new government and the introduction of the PP. The updating and drafting of the new framework started at the same time as the PP policy was announced.

There isn't a "history" here to be "historical". Narrowing the gap is a key coalition commitment. Pupil Premium supports that, as does the new inspection framework. Both were introduced as soon as humanly possible, and it is to the government's credit that narrowing the gap measures have been gathered so quickly.

You're grasping at straws in your animus towards the policy. The government introduced a massive change in school funding arrangements (some schools have gained close to half a million pounds per year) and in parallel made sure that there was audit and accountability. It wasn't a response to some imagined scandal, it was done at the same time. Most schools will face an inspection that includes PP accountability as their first inspection since PP was introduced.

curlew I do not object to any additional funds being spent on another's child. I certainly do not want my child to receive differential treatment, differentiated yes, but not differential.

This is because I have a deep suspicion regarding the effectiveness of 'interventions' carried out by state schools, resulting from personal experience. I believe that often, participation in these interventions, takes a child away from class activities and access to a qualified teacher, resulting in a sub standard education. I appreciate it does not have to, but it often is this way.

I do not like the thought that a whole group of children are targeted for this type of 'support' simply as a result of parental income.

friday I am not grasping at straws. However I may take a little while longer to convince that the PP funding is actually spent in a way that benefits the target group.

I believe that often, participation in these interventions, takes a child away from class activities and access to a qualified teacher, resulting in a sub standard education.

Then the narrowing the gap data will get worse and the schools will end up in special measures. That tends to focus leaders' minds.

I hope it will show up in the data. Of course prior attainment is a problematic measure in itself, I fell personally, since I do not really agree with the EYFS assessment methodology.

^ feel. Typo.