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.

[YouMakeMeHappy]

Well, you may not like it, but it seems it's proven. Am I supposed to be surprised? I think it's a terrible shame that some children don't have a parent who works. And I think they need all the help they can get from the state as they are hugely disadvantaged.

[MrsCakesPremonition]

I suggest you take a moment to read up on what the Pupil Premium is, and how it is intended to be used.
www.gov.uk/government/policies/raising-the-achievement-of-disadvantaged-children/supporting-pages/pupil-premium.

[fredfredgeorgejnr]

What would you like happen? The money available for extra support to be paid to lots of people who'll visit every family, snoop around to try and judge if that family will get value out of extra help for the kids. Or that money being spent helping the kids with a broad brush approach that has been proven likely to catch most people who would get value out of it.

Yes, some people who won't need the help will get some - although it's not just how motivated the family is to support, there are experiences where simply money helps. It's just not worth the cost or imposition to make it more targettes, especially since by making it any way tested will actually decrease the chance of many of the most in need from getting it.

YABU

[gordyslovesheep]

no youmakemehappy it's been shown that LOW INCOME families have children who struggle - no families who don;t work. Lots of working people are on low incomes

[YouMakeMeHappy]

Whatever the reason, it's a disadvantage and it's a good thing there are measures in place to counteract it. That's all.

[Thenapoleonofcrime]

Of course there are lots of reasons why people with a low income might nevertheless have an enriched home and learning life- they might have limits on earning power due to disability/lone parent, might be very well educated but not pursed a career/pursued low paid jobs or might actively reject the material life. However, this is not most poorer people. There is a whole host of research on socio-economic inequalities that shows that being poor scuppers your life chances in comparison to wealthier folk, from getting worse jobs to having worse health to dying younger.

I think it is great that the money is targeted in education but it can offend people. Nursery provision is being extended to poorer/disadvantaged/in more need households (also some disability criterion) to age 2 and while many will be delighted, others will be offended. However I think it's better than pouring money in indiscriminately like with Sure Start who then found it very hard to attract the hard to reach population they were trying to- and many centres filled up with wealthier parents who were naturally happy to do all this free/cheap stuff.

It's not personal and if you know your home life is great education wise, don't be offended. It can't be hard to imagine others who are poor don't have the same advantages as you though, can it?

[jeee]

To repeat what's already been said - if poor children were seen as a lost cause, then there would be no efforts (financial or otherwise) made to help them.

They are not seen as a lost cause - evidenced by the efforts made to support them.

[Hakluyt]

"no Hakluyt don't bother

not even to point out that lots of poor families WORK - for NMW on shit hours"
I didn't bother because anyone with the brains of a peanut could see what an ignorant post it was.

[YouMakeMeHappy]

Sorry, I thought free school meals were only for children fro, families where no one works... Not sure why I thought that.

In that case, I'm not sure why children from low wage families are expected to do worse in school. Like OP says, there's no link between what you earn and how intelligent your children are. Or how much help you give them at home.

[gordyslovesheep]

I know - I was agreeing with you

Poverty - that's the issue - you can work and be in poverty - even in 2014 in the UK - which is shit

Maybe read up on it Happy

[Fairylea]

I think it's fantastic that poorer families are given more support. What on earth is the problem?

We are a low income family. Dh earns £15.5k working full time in a retail management position (so he does work those of you who seem to assume this only applies to non working families!) And I can't work due to health problems. But we are both from a graduate background and our eldest dc is in the top sets at school (youngest is pre school age) so statistically we don't fit but I think it's brilliant that children from poorer backgrounds get more help and support at school. Statistically these children are the ones who need the most help especially in deprived areas.

[YouMakeMeHappy]

If it was me I'd feel embarrassed and wouldn't apply for the money unless I absolutely had to. I'd feel as if my child would be expected to do badly.

[YouMakeMeHappy]

Based on that twiggy, it's almost as if there might be a correlation between salary and intelligence.

[gordyslovesheep]

What effects can child poverty have?
Living in a poor family can reduce children's expectations of their own lives and lead to a cycle where poverty is repeated from generation to generation.

As adults they are more likely to suffer ill-health, be unemployed or homeless, and become involved in offending, drug and alcohol abuse, and abusive relationships.

In tackling poverty it is crucial to break the cycle. Education is a key element of this, as are initiatives which involve people in developing their skills and finding their own solutions to the problems in their community

www.barnardos.org.uk/what_we_do/our_projects/child_poverty/child_poverty_what_is_poverty.htm#what_is_child_poverty_2

[Hakluyt]

"In that case, I'm not sure why children from low wage families are expected to do worse in school. Like OP says, there's no link between what you earn and how intelligent your children are. Or how much help you give them at home."

Loads of reasons. A few. In many poor households parents are working every hour they can to keep things together. There is often very little time, space or energy left for school stuff. A lot of the things that richer people take for granted for their children (baby activities, tumble tots, swimming lessons, baby music) are prohibitively expensive for poor families. Many poor parents are not very well educated themselves, and are therefore less equipped to support their children. Some poorer families are very chaotic- not conducive to school. For some it is a struggle to get their children to school properly equipped and on time. Some try very hard and fail. Some don't try.

[fuzzpig]

I think the pupil premium is brilliant. But then I would, since my 2 get it :o for a while we were very low income for health reasons. DH now has a full time job so DCs won't get the actual FSM anymore, but I gather they will still get the PP, according to DD's teacher. Due to wanting to ensure a long term better outcome presumably.

It's based on statistics surely. As Morris put it - sensible targeting of resources. DH and I (and DCs' teachers) know that we are passionate about helping them learn and we do a lot at home when health allows. I am not remotely insulted or patronised that the help is being offered to us. As it happens, DD is really struggling with maths (younger brother isn't, and I was doing a maths degree before I became disabled, in other words it's not due to lack of parental education/input IYSWIM - it just hasn't 'clicked' yet) so the one to one time with a TA that is paid for by the PP is proving invaluable.

Schools can choose themselves how to use the PP, so they can target it most effectively. I really think it's great. I'll be interested to see how DD's junior school approaches it as she is changing school in September.

We are in a fairly wealthy area and the proportion of FSM is pretty low. I felt bad a few weeks ago - it was the end of the previous half term I think and I was picking DCs up from the after school activity that they do, paid for by the PP. Teacher (who is lovely) was chatting to a parent of one of DD's classmates, but also checking with everyone else as they left whether their child was continuing after the holiday so she could invoice them. As I was going she mentioned that she'd invoiced the school so my DCs could continue. The other parent stared daggers at me, like I was a criminal or something. I held my head high, smiled and thanked the teacher, but I can't deny it stung a bit. If looks could kill :(. Other mum doesn't have a clue about our circumstances though.

[Hakluyt]

I live in a selective area. The grammar school last year had no (count them-0) children who attracted Pupil Premium.

The High School had more than 30%.(can't remember the exact figure-31.something)

I don't think any more needs to be said, really.

(And before anyone asks, the schools are about a mile apart, so no travel issues. And there is no other school- it's either/or)

[Mrsjayy]

The assumption that poorer parents needing extra support bugs me it is a case of tarring all families with the same brush which is patronising, however some parents dont put their kids education first many families have chaotic lives and a 5yr olds resding book isnt top of the list, op the help is there if you need it if you dont need it then dont take it,

[Mrsjayy]

Dont think pp is in scotland

[Mim78]

Also if well off you could pay for support if struggling?

Not sure about those in the middle though.

Agree with all the posts about links between poverty and underachieving just thought of this as an extra.

[fuzzpig]

By the way both of us work - I now work PT due to my disability (I was FT before I got sick in 2012), and at the time we first got FSM DH only had casual work (having been out of work for over 3 years following a back injury, obviously it was a struggle to find something after he'd recovered from surgery).

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

YABU to call them a lost cause but YANBU to be offended at the assumption that a low income means poor support at home or a poor work ethic. It's a fairly well-known statistic that low-income families from certain ethnic backgrounds do far better than others, for example. So did they specify which ethnic groups would get this extra help?.. I doubt it. I'm a lone parent and would often get leaflets offering me courses on 'resolving conflict in the home'. I found that offensive.

I always think children should be helped according to need and not according to some arbitrary socio-economic grouping that they find themselves in.