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.

No, well I might have and forgotten about it. I have read some educational research, more SEN based, though. Keeping up with the funding reform and the local implementation of it has kept me on my toes. Otherwise it is novels, folklore, philosophy, New Scientist and narrative theory that I read for entertainment.

Heard this and thought of this thread.....

Can't really say who plays what part. However fear can be horrendous. I don't think it has to matter whether as a parent you are educated enough. Your children can still succeed, even if schools do not get their extra PPs.

If it doesn't matter whether a parent is educated enough, then it probably doesn't matter if a parent has enough money or not.

There is enough anecdotal evidence to show that children from poor or low educated households can succeed, so perhaps the PP should be scrapped altogether and all money should be allocated to each school depending on how many children they take. At least that way each child would be being treated fairly by the state.

Did you listen to the song?

No

Oh. The lyrics are quite beautiful IMO.

"There is enough anecdotal evidence to show that children from poor or low educated households can succeed, so perhaps the PP should be scrapped altogether and all money should be allocated to each school depending on how many children they take. At least that way each child would be being treated fairly by the state."

So we maintain the status quo. "The rich man in his castle... the poor man at the gate, for God did make them in their own state."

Quoting your song. "People live their lives the best way they know how " Know how best to live your life is one thing, but your children still have the right to best life possible. There is another expression "It takes a village to raise a child". How do we ensure that all children enjoy a good life expectancy and prosper as adults rather than just a few exceptions?

Prehaps we should fund special schools exactly the same as mainstream schools then.

ReallyTired Who should decide what is best though?

Oh and I'm for inclusion in all aspects of life, but things would have to be very different for it to work.

So we maintain the status quo.

Not necessarily. If schools were funded properly in the first place so that every child was enabled to achieve their academic potential, then there wouldn't be a problem. Nothing that is needed would be taken away from children on FSMs, but other children that need intervention would automatically receive it as well.

If there was still a huge gap between the achievement of children on FSMs and everyone else, then it would would show that the problem was a social one, not an educational one, and money could be put into improving standards of parenting instead.

Bollocks. I have no qualifications and am perfectly capable of helping with homework. I can even read and write. Exams aren't a test of intelligence.

Not necessarily. If schools were funded properly in the first place so that every child was enabled to achieve their academic potential, then there wouldn't be a problem

I agree to some extent.

'Positive' discrimination is still discrimination. Treat each person as an individual, each as possessing huge potential and nurture this. Then there wouldn't be a problem.

social one, not an educational one, and money could be put into improving standards of parenting instead.

Although this may involve the state alleviating hardship caused by poverty. The parenting may not be at fault, just made more difficult through circumstances.

The state already does that through benefits, especially child tax credits.

Someone on those benefits isn't really on any less money than someone who's for minimum wage. Income isn't as relevant as outgoings I don't think, because the minimum income should be enough. If it isn't enough for someone to be able to do a decent job of parenting, which includes supporting a child's education, then there will be other social problems present that should be dealt with separately.

All children should be entitled to the same standard of education, and should have the same access to intervention should they need it.

Don't worry. There are plenty of other things to keep poor children in their place. Let them have their Pupil Premium-after all, your children might benefit from it indirectly. And it's not as if it actually means there'll be crowds of working class children competing for places at Oxbridge........

All children should be entitled to the same standard of education

But affluent and/or education parents supplement.

What's wrong with that?

Maybe I should have said all children should be entitled to the same standard of education and the same access to intervention from the state.

The state cannot be expected to pay for correcting people's parenting failures unless a child is coming to actual harm, because those of us that support the state have our own children to provide for.

The state cannot be expected to pay for correcting people's parenting failures unless a child is coming to actual harm

Aside from the obvious "define actual harm" point, that's also crazy even has "I'm being hard nosed, the rest of you are just sentimental liberals" right-wing economics.

Intergenerational poverty costs the economy huge amounts of money. Fixing it would be a good investment.

But it's nice to know that there's someone on Mumsnet who would close all Surestart centres tomorrow morning.

No, I wouldn't close sure start centres because they address problems within society, which is exactly what I've been saying is needed.

I don't have a problem with the state spending a shitload of money, and I'd be happy to pay even more tax if services were to improve for all of us. But I do have a problem with money being given to schools who then have to help some children more than they help others based on their parents income rather than their need.

But, as it is I do think PP should be spent on the children who receive FSM, the group it is actually targeted on.

It is doing them a disservice if it is not, because this distorts need. If it is found that this means supporting some very gifted and talented children, this would change some people's perceptions concerning this targeted group.

As it stands these children are perceived as disadvantaged, which some take as synonymous with the hopeless cause. To the recipients it can feel like the teaching profession are saying they must be compensated, merely for agreeing to teach them.

This is the greatest wrong IMO.

The part I don't like is that, if a strong perception is held concerning this target group, it will have them stuck in inappropriate 'interventions', which they don't actually need more than any other child, instead of nurturing their actual potential.

No, I wouldn't close sure start centres because they address problems within society, which is exactly what I've been saying is needed.

This would deter me from ever attending one. I wouldn't want to be perceived as a problem within society.

As it stands these children are perceived as disadvantaged, which some take as synonymous with the hopeless cause.

Have you ever actually been in a school?

My children's school is using PP money to target Oxbridge preparation at a recently orphaned child who is in foster care. Which part of that do you disapprove of? Should she be told that her parents should pay instead? It'll be tricky, with them being dead and all.

friday Maybe we don't move in the same circles but this, unfortunately, is my experience, in school. From the TA (observed by a volunteer) who exclaimed 'Good God' loudly after seeing a child's grubby pants when changing for PE, to the clear shock on the discovery I was actually fairly highly educated, in the face of my own child's apparent SEN. These attitudes do exist.