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.

I might have agreed with you if both parents in a home were functionally illiterate, but not where you're basing your argument on the number of exams they have.

I do get your point. I have a degree, my dh doesn't. I canhelp my childrenvwith their homework v easily and will be able to continue to do so until at least gcse level I think.
If I wasn't around, my dh would be less able to help the dc with school stuff (he is great at things I am not good at).
Last year on holiday in frsnce we were having lunch hext to a british family. Thedad spent the lunch talking to his two sons about metaparticles in a very interesting way. Both sons were massively engaged in the conversation.
We were talking about swimming.
It really made me think about how lucky those boys were to have such a knowledgeable dad. Thevadvantages to them in life were obvious to me and it has made me up my game in trying to give my children knowledge ( although I will never be able to compete withvthat dad)

My DH is terrible at exams and only got 2 c and above gcse's in his chosen subjects. He now has a very high paid job and is the "go to" guy in his company. He certainly isn't uneducated.

Madmammy do you know the what the Pupil Premium is?

god I've missed mn.

This thread is like those ones about summer babies when loads of people who were born on 31st August and have won Nobel prizes pile in to say that it's all a load of bollocks. However, the fact still remains that statistically summer born children are likely to achieve less well at school than those born earlier in the academic year.

I read a very interesting article in a statistics magazine recently about a large study which had looked at different predictors of achievement in school such as month of birth, socioeconomic factors, ethnicity, region and how good the school was. It concluded that the most important factor in determining how well a child does at school is the level of education that child's parents have.

This does not mean that all children of parents with no GCSEs are doomed to academic failure, and nor does it mean that all children of parents with PhDs are destined for stellar careers. But that doesn't mean the idea that a child might possibly be at a disadvantage because of their parents' lack of education should be instantly dismissed.

It is harder for uneducated parents to support their children with homework than someone with a degree
so parents are either 'uneducated' or 'have a degree'?
how offensive.

The wording of the OP's post is clumsy and was always going to rub people up the wrong way.

A better explanation might have been that more formally educated parents i.e to degree, Msc and PhD level have an understanding of the education system and it's expectations that perhaps less formally educated parents lack but it's in no way about intelligence, more knowing how the system works.

My parents haven't got a qualification between them and had no input whatsoever into my homework so I struggled with some of the finer points of education. It wasn't that they didn't care, just that they lacked certain essentials to sufficiently guide me. Now, it is only after completing my post graduate qualification that I can honestly say that I know what is expected from coursework and exams. Hopefully I will be able to pass these tips onto my children

Given that GCSE's are practically worthless nowadays how would this work? I only managed 3 A-C back in the 80's. Are you saying that I'm not articulate enough to look after my child's needs? Should I bill the taxpayer for getting a support officer to assist me when taking my child to the doctor? Should I just hand her over to social services now then? Oh and I'm not a cleaner or brickie I manage the UK office of an international company. That seems to be a lovely compartmentalized world you live in where everything is so black and white!

Wow calm down people.

OP I think your idea as it stands is unworkable - sorry. It would just be too hard to administer.

It's worth pointing out that while the current Pupil Premium is based on the number of children in a school who qualify for FSM (or have done in the last 6 years or are Forces children or have been "looked after" for a continuous 6 month period) schools do have some flexibility in who they target with that money. While a school would undoubtedly get into trouble if its PP children are not making sufficient progress, most PP policies I have read (and I have read quite a few! and written one myself) contain a statement similar to this:

"In making provision for socially disadvantaged pupils, we recognise that not all pupils who receive free school meals are socially disadvantaged. We also recognise that not all pupils who are socially disadvantaged are registered or qualify for free school meals. We reserve the right to allocate the Pupil Premium funding to support any pupil or groups of pupils the school has legitimately identified as being socially disadvantaged."

Of course noone is saying that all children whose parents don't hold many academic qualifications are disadvantaged. But there clearly are plenty of children in this group who are. I just hope schools are being intelligent enough to include them in their planning for Pupil Premium spending (I suspect lots are too scared of Ofsted to do so though ).

however I would suggest that it isn't parental education that is the issue, its parental attitude to education

^this is far more important than income or parental qualification IMHO.

Nigella Pupil Premium was only introduced in April 2011, so it didn't exist 4 years ago. I'm not sure what was funding the new swimming pool roof but it wasn't PP money!

ginnybag I'm amused too. Was wondering if anyone else had noticed. This thread is like those ones where someone mentions that social services check to see if there is any food in the house, and posters compete to be out-raged by this unreasonable check that the children are ever met, and thence to claim that it means their own children would be placed on the at-risk register, as they "meal-plan".

I had children without five GCSEs or level 2 qualifications. I would not, however, be included in any such scheme, as I had 4 (good) AS-levels and three (shit) A-levels!

Nigella Good try, but the bit about GCSEs is neither the first sentence or the first line. It is the point of the thread, though. The bit about the degrees is ill-judged colour. However, the presumption that studying a subject at degree level improves your skills in unrelated areas is one that our culture seems to hold as axiomatic at the moment. Have you noticed all those jobs ads that require a generic graduate? Sales, admin, etc. The employer doesn't need a specific subject, just that the person has managed to get a degree in something.

It actually seems more reasonable to me to assume that a greater proportion of the set of people who studied something at degree level will be able to hack supporting a child to do school homework, even when it's unrelated subjects, than the set of non-degree holders. As opposed to assuming that a degree in something is a prerequisite for being sworn at in a call-centre.

First of all, OP, what on earth does reprepremisble mean??

Secondly, my Dad got into grammar school and left with exactly nothin in the form of qualifications. My Mum went back to college and Uni (graduating and becoming a teacher) when I was 17. They had absolutely no problems with helping me and my three siblings through our school years. They read to us all the time (big book lovers my parents) and my Mum was a Governor at our primary school.

My Dad is one of the smartest people I know, but he doesn't get on with education himself. Probably to do with all the ex-Army types he had for teachers who used to beat seven shades of shit out of the boys. He now quite easily completes the Private Eye crossword (cryptic) fortnightly and gets through a stupid amount of books. So he has no qualifications to show and no further education beyond the age of 15, yet you would class him as 'uneducated'?

I worked my nuts off until I hit my GCSE's and then went to pieces. I have spent the time since then gaining vocational qualifications. My dc are all exceeding expectations at school, but I left school with 3 GCSE's. Even without them, I'm quite capable of working through school paperwork, reading to and with my children and helping with homework where required.

My brother left school with nothing because exams don't agree with him. He's like my Dad, extremely clever, soaks up knowledge, can't get on with formal education. He re-took his GCSE English the summer before last and got an A* - his Tutor said his work was easily A-Level standard. He works in the warehouse in M&S. My niece is doing really well at school.

My sister left school with no quals (another one who doesn't get on with exams and formal education), but my nephew is ahead of himself in many ways and loves books and being read to.

Your theory is bunkum, as evidenced by the many people on this thread.

*are ever fed

well they were receiving pp for my children at that time, it was four school years ago i suppose. and as i said, my children received no benefit whatsoever for it, despite the headteacher telling me about the extra money.
some kind of pp has existed for children on fsm for more than 4 years , I remember receiving letters prior to that begging parents to sign up for fsm even if they didnt want them.

Ok your wording needs some work but I don't see why you're getting a flaming, I think it is very sensible. A mother's education level is he biggest indicator of how well her children do at school - why not target children of parents who have not done well?

I think giving the pupil premium to poor families is far more patronising, although I suppose everyone flaming you also disagrees with that?

Nigella Good try
what 'good try' bigjessie? I merely quoted parts of the OP....if it doesnt stand a bit of deconstruction....

Why is this such a controversial idea? I thought that there was a strong correlation between parents (notably mothers) academic achievement levels and those of their children. if this is the case then it may be a less blunt way of targeting funds than at present where only children who qualify for FSM qualify for the funding.

There are always antedotes where people defy the normal, but social mobility is dire in the UK.

Don't you mean anecdotes, OP? Rather ironic, considering the theme of your post...

op isn't very vocal on this thread is she? goading I'd say...

And this thread is a very good example of the phrase "the plural of anecdote is not data".

Just read the first few "this idea doesn't apply to me so it's stupid" replies and skipped to the end.

The two most important factors in determining how well a child does at school are the level of their parents education and poverty. The problem is people always pile in saying "that's rubbish- my parents left school at 5 and licked doors for a living, but they always supported me and now I'm the Astronomer Royal". Somehow missing the point that we're talking about a group not individuals. Yes, some children of poor, non educated parents do fantastically well, but a) they are the exception, not the rule and b) they have usually had to work 10 times as hard to get there.

Oh for Fucks sake folks, the OP may have worded her OP badly, but the fact is Pupil premium Does not reach all the children who need it.

In rural areas like this there are a group of very hard working parents, struggling on manual job wages, who didn't see the point of school and who's rural primaries were pretty crap.

Their manual, seasonal jobs are disappearing, they can see their DCs need qualifications they thought they could do without.

They don't have the skills to help with HW or know how to set up a wireless network. They can't afford to buy laptops etc anyway.

Many live in out of the way corners in rented houses on farms etc. Their DCs are dependent on the bus and their parents interactions with school way less than the MC parents.

They don't stay for after school clubs or come to PTA events. They can barely afford to buy petrol to get to work.

In an area of affluent commuters, with DCs at an extracurricular club every night of the week. They are forgotten.

Yabu. Many degrees these days don't demand much at all in the way of academic ability. Many, many people are pretty dim. That's just life.