to ask why is there a link between free school meals and how well children do at school?

[Chasdingle]

DS is at preschool and recently got ofsted inspection and something they wrote in the inspection i though abit 'what???'

It was basically along the lines that children who would be in receipt of free school meals if they attended school did well at the nursery but less well than than their peers and were still behind their peers on starting school.

Why is this linked to free school meals or being poor? I really feel like its tarring everyone with the same brush.

When i was at school i got free school meals and i was always in the top set for everything. a friend of mine also on free school meals and between the two of us we were probably in the top 5 pupils in all subjects out of 120 kids. (and i don't mean that in a show off way just merely stating fact)

Obviously i realise that stats probably say that free school meal children do less well but i remember my mum getting angry when i was at school as people used to alway slag off 'one parent families' which we were.

I have a good life now and have a good job so am seeing this from a child point of view rather than a parent..

Pupil Premium doesn't have to be spent on you directly.

My sons school used the PP budget exclusively on Y11 for intervention and small group tuition teaching leading up to GCSEs.

PP isn't limited to FSM.

There are other groups of children identified by sound research to be underperforming (LAC and Forces children) and the premium is both cash to do more in schools and a reminder that the groups need attention.

That some individuals are outliers to a group is a normal and well known phenomena.

I got FSM as a kid. My mum was a single parent, on crap benefits in the 90s (she'd fled my dad, who was very dangerous) and we lived in an affluent area so it was obvious who the 'poor kids' were etc.

On the flip side, it made me want to do well so I could do well at 'life' I guess. A lot of poorer-family pupils didn't do that great but plenty of us did. I only didn't go to uni because of DS but fully intend to and have always done above average in exams etc.

I think there is a link but it's not as strong as people think. I do think things like parenting/homelife, geographical location, local culture etc are much more important/influential wrt educational outcomes of children/young adults.

It is part of my job to decide on how our PP budget is allocated. Statistically, there are national gaps between 'groups' which a fair and equal society will try to close, and an inclusive education system will strive to overcome, imo.

Of course, not every child on FSM is underachieving and neglected, just like not every child from an affluent background is happier, more intelligent, more loved, more supported than a child on FSM. Those are prejudices. We are trying to focus on fairness and opportunity.

The markers are crude, but we need something to go on to make sure that we try to make education as level a playing field as possible.

For example, I start by filtering 'groups'. First check: PP, EAL, SEN, low ability and underachieving. What can we do for them? For an 11 year old with dyslexia, ADHD and dyspraxia, who is a low ability learner, who hasn't had any breakfast and who is trying to master a whole new language, a day at school is harder than for a child without these barriers to learning. So money can be allocated to one on one support, specialist materials breakfast club reading group, trips to the library or museum or whatever to engage and support this child.

Of course, we also have the child who will come up using the same filter who is EAL as they, and their parents, are entirely bilingual, their SEN is a hearing impairment which is being monitored and treated exceptionally well by parents and doctors, who are low ability or underachieving because their data is from a different education system, and whose parents are supportive and are giving their child the most amazing childhood jam packed full of educational and social experiences.

In my experience though, the filter picks up more kids near the former end of the spectrum.

You then just drop a filter every time when you allocate the money (like triage!) until you are simply offering some enriching experiences for kids whose parents would find the money to do this, but now don't gave to struggle as there is a little extra provision. For example, one of my A level students (top of the class, off to an amazing uni soon) couldn't afford the ticket to the trip to Stratford upon Avon. He'll get an A without it, but why should he miss out and the other kids who have been to the theatre often before have that educational experience over him because their parents can afford it? I just paid for his with PP funding.

It's not a stigma. It's an imperfect attempt at social balance.

Was toying with the idea of writing a dissertation on this, but it seems I just did

Statistics show that children on FSM fare less well educationally. Of course there will be the odd exception but the bulk wont be.

Children in receipt of FSM are usually in a non working household (WTC means no FSM and most low waged claim this) so there is less chance of extra academic activities, work ethic etc.

Ofsted are really pushing schools on pupil premium at the moment and the bulk of schools will use for TAs. Those with a high percentage will have more money so may stretch to other things too.

It's a quick and easy way to identify social depravation. Which is not say all children on FSM are the same - the most academically able child in my class is, in fact, on FSM. But statistically FSM children are disadvantaged within the education system.

howcontrarymary the school will have made sure that pupils eligible for PP are in those groups though!

At our school, a portion of PP money is put aside to subsidise school trips and extra curricular opportunities for those in receipt of FSM. The theory is if they have a low income so need FSM, they would struggle to afford school trips.

Some more money is used to fund support for intervention groups. These groups aren't solely consisting of FSM pupils, but we start by looking at what the FSM children need. Some are struggling in specific skills, so we will start a group concentrating on those skills and pull in other children that will benefit. Some are higher achievers, so we start a HA group. Etc.

The threshold for getting FSM is quite low, imho, the household usually has chronically reduced circumstances.

I think that between FSM-council housed & affluent/Only-Ofsted-Outstanding-will-do, there are a lot of families in-between who are just ordinary. But the contrast between this group & those on FSM can still be big.

The way I see it, it's about helping the children achieve their potential, not comparatively with others in the class, which I don't think is a particularly good indicator. I had FSM and was a high achiever in secondary school, but I knew my mum struggled to pay for things like ingredients for home ec, and trips for me. Even doing after school activities was difficult because I needed to get home to look after my younger siblings.

I still did well, but did I achieve everything I could have? That's what the pupil premium should be helping towards.

I'm a single parent, children are entitled to free school meals.

Dc1 is 6 and top table for everything in year 1.

Dc2 is in preschool & pretty much achieved all early learning goals for end of reception, reading well, glowing reports from his teacher.

They eat very well, lots of fresh fruit & veg. Probably watch a bit too much Tv & play a bit too much Minecraft but who is perfect?

I must admit I am very aware of the negative associations in the media with single mums. I do everything with my boys academically so that they reach their potential.

I don't consider us to be poor. We have a nice (tiny) house, enough to eat, they are dressed well, do activities, I am blessed

Unfortunately there is a correlation (NOT a direct causation) between FSM and low aspirational culture.

I've seen it both ways - I've been part of a large peer group who got a kick out of being perceived as low-achieving and part of a large peer group who strove to make the most out of their potential.

Guess which group where the recipients of FSM!

There are various weak attempts to try and raise the ambitions of groups who genuinely can't imagine ever succeeding at school and beyond for various reasons, but I can't say I've come across any particularly successful initiatives yet.

I find FSM is a welcome indicator, but in my area there are very many families on wages that just push them out of FSM, and benefits, who actually need the help and FSM just as much, if not more. They tend to be shift workers and their children are at CM from 5am due to rural nature of agricultural shiftwork.

I am glad that the KS1 kids from these families will get a free meal come Spetember, but the KS2 ones need it just as much, if not more.

Furthermore, as a child I was entitled to FSM, did quite well at school, went on to get a 2.1 Law Degree from a Russell Group uni.

Would love to see a link to statistics that show outcomes.

Children with additional needs can lead to FSM so the lines can cross. The school my DC's go to have 2 % free school meals and 1% children with statements whereas my DS 2 special school has 42% FSM with many single parents due to the pressure of having a disabled child on your relationship and your ability to work, this also reflects in poorer areas with not only higher FSM but higher % of children with SEN. Whilst it may be a crude tool if it can decreases the gap between outstanding and failing schools then that would be a positive.

That's really interesting about SEN link Cobain. I would imagine if families find it difficult to organise breakfast they would find it difficult helping with reading and just general support.

TheBakeryQueen if you google: differences in attainment between FSM and the rest gov.uk. you'll find the stats.

Of course it's an indicator.
You claim to be top if your class, yet you can't see this obvious statistic?
It's not a ignorance or a stigmatism, it's a fact. There are always exceptions to the rule, but % wise, it is true.
Why? Why are you objecting?

" Attainment statistics published in January 2014 show that in 2013 37.9% of pupils who qualified for free school meals got 5 GCSEs, including English and mathematics at A* to C, compared with 64.6% of pupils who do not qualify." stats here

"The test results for more than half a million 11-year-olds (key stage 2) show 74% of pupils receiving free school meals (FSM) achieved the expected level (level 4) or above in maths compared to 87% of all other pupils." stats here

sufficient stats for you bakeryqueen? (you will also be pleased to know that the single most important factor for how well children do at school is the educational level of their mother ;) )

I think it's a good thing that the gap is acknowledged and schools are trying to address it. However as has been already said there are families just above the FSM threshold who are really struggling too and whose children would benefit from extra funding to help ensure they reach their full potential.

I agree that there is a general correlation (can't really disagree with statistics can you!)

However, I think that, as AnitaBlake pointed out, we should be careful to emphasise that is is helping children achieve their potential when they otherwise might not, rather than saying that 'all children on FSMs are low achievers' which is blatantly untrue. So, for example, a child who does well academically and gets 8 good GCSEs, 2As and a B at A Level and played on the school hockey team could, with PP, achieve 10 good GCSEs, 3As at A Level and play county sport. Probably still a bit crude though.

Also, I teach in a non selective private school and, seriously, high family income most certainly does not = high achieving children!!

Pupil Premium Plus money for Looked After Children is about to be managed by Virtual Headteachers- in other words, the Virual Head (who is responsible for the education of all children looked after by the borough) will only release the money once the school has shown how they will spend it to improve the child's academic attainment.

At least, that's the plan.

Pupil Premium for children in receipt of (or Ever6) FSM does not have to be used by the school in the same way, and they are freer to absorb it into the budget- but they must evidence how it has been used to close the gap.

Thank you Betsyboop.

Oblomov, I haven't objected (assuming your post is aimed at me?). Merely pointed out an exception. You have misunderstood my post.