Why are poor children considered a lost cause

[mrsbucketxx]

I had my ds's new school induction yesterday and there attitude to families who are less well off really shocked me, if you earn less than 16k your child will receive extra dupport in their education more help at home etc.

Aibu to think they are saying if your poor you have less intellegent children, or you are less likely as a parent to support your childs education at home.

Help with lunches yes
Help witn paying for trips yes

I dont think extra staff and home support is needed it would look like a slap in the face as a parent just cause I dont earn as much.

Or am I being extra sensitive.

Support not dupport

What 'home support' is it?

If they were considered a "lost cause" they wouldn't offer the extra support? Statistically, children with parents on lower incomes do less well, regardless of their intelligence. It's just about making sure that all children achieve their potential.

I'd want to know that if a child of parents who are better off was struggling, would that child get "home support" and the same resources as the child of someone less well off?

But I agree with you. The assumption is awful, and just separates the lower-income from everyone else in yet another way.

Me to zebra

Ideally the support should be available to everyone.

The reason a family might not be poor is because both parents with long hours, leaving the kid being passed around between friends and family and missing out on the support at home too (through time not through intent or lack of parental education)

I think you're being sensitive. They are trying to address a problem which has presumably been proven in educational studies. If they find a poor child doing well and receiving good support at home then they will be happy and target their resources elsewhere. Just like if they find a rich child struggling and parents not caring then they will address that. The generalisation is just a starting point I would have thought.

Do you mean the pupil premium? If so YABU. If they were considered a lost cause the government wouldn't be putting this in place.

Non pupil premium children would still be supported by school out of school budget.

Equally, AFAIK, home support is available through parent partnership to all parents.

I think it's good thy are offering support. I my school there were only 3 kids on free meals, mine. The school are really supportive and I had trips paid when I was struggling. They also have a homework club for kids who haven't do their homework. They go away for an hr on a Monday with a helper and do it while the others do something else. I think it's a good idea. Sometimes I have missed HW with 3 DC as a SP and working weekends and on he odd occasion they have done it at school then joined in with the discussion about it.

I think it's simply a case if targeting limited resources as effectively as possible - it's not a comment on you personally, although I can entirely see why it might feel as though it is.

For as long as the children from poorer families are more likely to underachieve then I think it's right to give poorer families extra support.

I absolutely disagree that targeting resources towards poorer families is giving up on them though - quite the opposite.

Plus they don't get wrong for it which hey can't help if they Re in KS1.

Ignore typos as on phone

The help at home I can't see being needed in most cases. We earn less than that but we certainly don't need intervention at home!

The extra support...why not? My children go to a very MC school and most of the kids are in private tuition. The standards are very high...I wouldn't object to extra maths or literacy.

"But I agree with you. The assumption is awful, and just separates the lower-income from everyone else in yet another way."

It may be awful, but the single biggest indicator of academic underachievement is parental poverty. Just have a look at how children on FSM achieve compared to their cohort. So targeting support on the children who need it most makes pragmatic sense.

Th problem is that people think of this as if it's about individuals rather than a "class" of people. Yes, loads of people on low income support their children well, and those children do well. And loads of people on higher incomes don't support their children. But as a class poor children do significantly worse academically than better off ones.

A free lunch is a good thing to give a child, but sufficient education so he can buy his own lunch in future is much better...

It's not an assumption, it's sensible targeting of resources.

I'm not surprised at all that children who come from a family where nobody works don't do well!

Talk about setting a bad example.

"A free lunch is a good thing to give a child, but sufficient education so he can buy his own lunch in future is much better..."

Yep. The targeted resources the OP is objecting to is intended to provide both.

OP you may not like it but it's a fact - children in poor families do not do as well in education - this needs to change, I am sure you agree, so support is given

"I'm not surprised at all that children who come from a family where nobody works don't do well!

Talk about setting a bad example."

Shall I bother to comment on this bit of inanity?
No, I don't think I will.

no Hakluyt don't bother

not even to point out that lots of poor families WORK - for NMW on shit hours

And your OP just goes to show that money doesn't bring insight eh OP?

Think about it for a few seconds. They aren't saying being poor means you are stupid, they are saying that living in poverty as a child means you are more likely to experience difficulties which make it harder to reach your full potential.

A child loving in poverty is much more likely to experience cramped or damp/cold conditions with nowhere to do their homework. Might be hungry - harder to concentrate at school. No resources at home sick as pens, paper. More likely to have some sort of chaotic home life - much harder to concentrate at school. Can't afford the correct uniform pieces - more likely to be bullied. Might not have access to washing machine/dryer so might wear dirty clothes - bullied. More likely to have parents who aren't as engaged with education. Etc.

Trying to break the cycle of poverty is a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

Youmakemehappy, there may be lots of reasons why both patents don't work. Please don't generalise.