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.

[TheLovelyBoots]

I am saying I understand it smarting.

Yes, I do too.

[ppplease]

Retropear, there will never be the utopia as regards all parents looking after their children educationally well.

mrsbucketxx, you and your husband may well have done well as you say. But others in the same situation as yourself quite likely do need the extra support.
It wont do any harm will it?

[bigmouthstrikesagain]

Maybe it is more helpful to consider coming from a lower income bracket as an obstacle rather than a stigma. Take the example of summer born children - my son is August born, not his fault but it means he is always the youngest in his year group, children born only a matter of days later are a school year behind, children nearly a year older are in his class. If the school year started in August he would have an advantage. As it is he has to manage, there is plenty of statistical evidence to show summer born children struggle and their academic performance is negatively impacted by the mere fact of their birthday. My ds did struggle in primary school, lagging behind in emotional maturity and took longer to master fine motor skills than his peers. This gap has narrowed to the point that it is practically non existent now but I still feel the injustice combined with guilt that if I had got pregnant a few weeks later he would have breezed through primary school!

It was an obstacle to overcome not a indicator that he was destined to fail, poverty is another such barrier so is geographical location and in some areas gender. There is no shame in acknowledging reality.

[Pregnantberry]

I understand that there is a strong correlation between underachievement and poverty, and I would prefer extra educational help be given to low income families than none at all.

But, on the other hand, wouldn't it make more sense to just allocate the money to children who actually ARE lagging behind their potential, rather than those who are assumed to be?

I can think of children I have known to be exceptions to the rule that poor families produce underachieving children - and I know that this does not disprove the correlation in the slightest - but the point is, there is no reason for resources to be unnecessarily allocated to high achieving children because their parents earn 15k, when there are children from families on 17k, or even 25k+, who may need it much more.

As I am keen to stress, yes, the reality is that poor families are more likely to have underachieving children, but in that case, if we just said that children who are achieving below their potential should receive extra help then most of these children would end up being from low income families, anyway. Then we could avoid this whole uncomfortable problem of separating children up by class in the first place (I know a lot of people don't think that this is a problem, but clearly it is for others).

We can also expect that in the current situation in the UK in which more and more people go to university and wages are not rising that more (future) parents who are well educated and aspirational themselves might end up on low incomes with children. I can empathise with the OP completely as to why she might feel offended because she has been assumed to not be providing the same educational support for her children because of her financial situation.

[bigmouthstrikesagain]

Ugh reading back through my last post it sounds patronising ... sorry not sure why so just let me say that is not my intention

[bigmouthstrikesagain]

www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/pupil-premium this link to foster site has useful info on spending the pupil premium.

I think it is important to remember that schools are at the mercy of DofE when it comes to funding - but at least the guidelines are clear that the targeted funding is not just about low achieving pupils but about monitoring progress and ensuring the pp children reach their potential.

[bigmouthstrikesagain]

Foster = ofsted

[midnightagents]

That is shocking. I think it is way too much of a sweeping generalisation. I knew a few rich kids growing up who were thick as pig shit and could probably have done with that extra help tbh. Our income is way less than that, about half actually, and my dp has a first class honours degree, and I have a 2:1, our dd has been speaking articulately for ages and is very bright. We happen to be on a low income because the job market is in a fucked up place for young people at the moment.

[Hakluyt]

You know, I would have thought that having a 2:1 would mean you could understand the concept of a particular group of children as a class doing less well than they should, and that individual children in that class doing very well does not make the statistics any less valid. I would also have thought that it might have made you think before posting about any child being "as thick as pig shit" on a thread about education. But hey ho.

[IamRechargingthankYou]

to TheSpork.

And some facts...In order to qualify for FSM you can't be receiving WTC, hence low-waged workers don't receive it FSM for their dc.

There is a scheme called FSM+6 where the PP can follow a child for up to 6 years after they are no longer eligible for FSM.

Schools receive the PP (apprx £900pa) and must show how they have spent it and the achievements/progress from it's expenditure.

Schools can include non-FSM students in the expenditure of PP.

Schools must publicize their annual PP expenditure and if they have a good website you can often find the info there.

Now I must get back to my low-paid work and more for TheSpork - can't beat a bit of Marxism with the morning coffee.

[SarcyMare]

pregnantberry
"But, on the other hand, wouldn't it make more sense to just allocate the money to children who actually ARE lagging behind their potential, rather than those who are assumed to be? "
so you think help should wait a couple of years until a problem appears rather than fix it before it happens

[ReallyTired]

midnightagents How do you know that your daughter is reaching her full potential? Just because she is above average does not mean that she is reaching her full potential. Very few ex fsm go on to Oxbridge. Prehaps going to get a a 2.1 from a respectable Russel Uni might be underahieving for a gifted child from a low income family.

" I knew a few rich kids growing up who were thick as pig shit and could probably have done with that extra help tbh."

Not nice way to describe a child, but all schools have an SEN budget for such children. Children living in poverty have a different set of problems to children who have low cognitive ablity.

"Schools can include non-FSM students in the expenditure of PP."

Any intervention has to be tracked to prove that its raising standards for children on free school meals. For example a school might choose to have smaller classes or employ a really experienced teacher if that is going to close the attainment gap for kids in those classes on fsm.

A school can not choose to spend fsm money on the school playground or giving one to one tutiion to the profoundly dyslexic son of a millionaire.