To think that there should be a pupil premium to help schools support children who have a parent in prison

[ReallyTired]

Prison should be there to punish the adults, but it has a negative affect on families. Sometimes sending someone to prison is unavoidable. I think providing additional funding for children with a parent in prison would enable schools to support such children better.

It's not as simple as that - as I have already said, offending behaviour is associated with complex blend of factors, poverty is just one of them

Understood. But you're trying to create a simple relationship - disincentivise criminal behaviour by refusing to look after the children left in its wake.

That's unlikely, as an initiative, to be particularly powerful in my opinion (I have no insight into this). Yet you are asserting that it would be more beneficial than XYZ. Do you have evidence for that?

Neither the children nor their parents would get their hands on the money. The parents would see no benefit and have no say how the money is spent. Such money might pay for councelling for a six year old who is traumatised after seeing mummy badly beaten up. Or maybe the money could be used to employ a TA to mentor them or a breaskfast club or extra sport. The individual children needs would have to be assessed. Having a parent in prison might affect children in different ways.

Exactly. Which is why arguments that kids of prisoners would be getting PP anyway on low income grounds are as irrelevant as they're questionable - because the particular needs of these children are over and above any needs they may already have had before a) the event that precipitated the incarceration and b) the changes their life has undergone since the sentencing, e.g. spending the whole of every weekend schlepping halfway up the country to see the incarcerated parent instead of being able to see friends, do activities, get their homework done or just have some downtime in a normal environment. You are spot on, OP.

No! The impact on your family is one of many things that you should think about before you commit a crime!

I can't believe anyone would even suggest such nonsense

I will just about agree with the idea that children should not be disadvantaged by their parent's socio economic status, so broadly support pupil premium, but the idea that a deliberate criminal act should be considered in the same way? Good grief, I've heard it all now!

Can't you imagine being the child in that situation Manor?

I'm trying and it's not nice at all.

Children shouldn't suffer unnecessarily as part of their parents' punishment.

I disagree with a blanket "parent in prision = pupil premium" suggestion. But that's because PP is means tested based on income so a parent's location or behaviour is irrelevant to that.

However I don't disagree that children who are in need of more support should get it. I am very much in favour of that and quite prepared to pay the taxes necessary to deliver it. Those services should be funded based on need, not circumstance. So a child of a prisoner who needs counselling should be able to access that service because of the clinical need. The child of a two parent family of higher rate tax payers should also be able to access good mental health services if there is a clinical need.

So because PP is not a fix for the situation you describe I cannot agree with you op. But I do agree the support and early intervention for children who need it in this country is very poor and needs a lot of work and that should be separate from PP because it must be specific to that child's needs and PP is not spent or allocated in that way.

The state has obligations to children and part of that is finding ways to redress lack of opportunity socially and emotionally where parents do not or cannot do that.

Stompy yes I know the kinds of things it's spent on. I'm not sure what you mean?

I would contest that policy, because having had the experience of my DH being Sectioned, it's shocking that there is no support for that situation.

The services for children whose Parent(s), have MH issues, is patchy and sometimes non existent.

I know quite a few parents in Prison, I live in a rough bit of Liverpool, in a lot of cases, the children benefit from the Parent being taken out of their lives. Many don't already claim FSM and don't go on to.

I think good Pastoral Care is the way forward.

There's reports that 60% of Refugees, including the children, have a form of PTSD, yet the services aren't going to be in place to support them.

I don't think the PP funding is way forward.

My ex is in prison for violently abusing me. I have been left unable to work because of the traumatic flash backs I have. Both my children need support with their emotional scars too.

How I wish there was more in place to support them!

Of course YANBU. Of course children who are suffering the loss of a parent should be helped as much as possible. What on earth is the point of the mantra Every Child Matters otherwise? I would hate to live with the kind of dessicated and punitive mindset that thinks otherwise. The idea that we should allow children to suffer further in order to teach their parents a lesson is absolutely abhorrent. Seriously? The school is going to decide that little Samuel can't join the rest of his class on a school trip, so that Samuel's father can sit in his cell and think about what he's done?! Sarah's mother is in prison, so we'll make sure she can't access the help she needs for her GCSEs?! Get a grip.

I don't agree the pp is the answer for a the reasons that moving and birds have just given above.

Maybe there are other groups where a pupil premium is justified. My mother informally fostered a friend's daughter after her friend was sectioned for six weeks thirty years ago. It was very hard work for her and there was no support for my mother inspite of the fact that she had saved the state fortune as they did not have to put the girl in care.

I am not sure what the best way of funding support for vunerable groups. Some schools have more than their fair share of vunerable children. They do not have the resources to give pastoral care to every child who needs it.

But PP is the wrong solution for what are some very real problems.

It's like saying "that child has a broken leg, so we'll give some money to the school and he'll be helped by getting better nutrition via free school meals and a free trip to the natural history museum" which doesn't address the specific and individual need of that child, which is to get their broken leg fixed! That doesn't mean they wouldn't benefit from free school meals or an educational trip (I would suggest all children would from the latter and many from the former) but that's a separate issue.

Probably the best way to help would be for schools to refer to the social and health services needed by each child and for the government to properly fund them.

Oh and for the government to stop taking money away from the poorest in our society while spouting "in work" rhetoric and repeatedly failing to address the fact that many of the people affected ARE IN WORK. That would help too!

But these are all social issues, not school ones and so need a society wide solution which is our welfare state.

I think you are being a bit ridicolous. You need to consider how long term an issue is. Someone with long term mental health issues is better supported by a decent disablity allowance. Asylum seekers are usually on free school meals.

Children in prison are a bit of a special group. A parent with mental health issues is not usually devoid of a moral compass. Most people with mental health issues don't usually commit crime. I have a friend with severe biopolar disorder and she is an excellent role model to her daughter.

Every child with a parent in prision has at least one shitty parent. Sometimes a shitty parent is more of liablity than no parent.

A quick question if anyone knows.

Is there any proof that pp has actually made any difference in a childs life. A real difference?

Or is it just throwing money at a social problem we refuse to tackle. i.e. irresponsible parents...

I am more than happy to support any child that needs help but throwing money around without a concrete plan and strategy generally achieves nothing.

Were you addressing that post to me ReallyTired? Because if so I don't understand your point at all.

JaWell Ofsted are pretty hot on checking whether the way schools are spending the money is having an impact. You can look up any school's stats on this using the Ofsted Data Dashboard.

Also, PP is pretty much a reallocation of existing funding, rather than extra money.

The performance of PP pupils educationally is measured against the non PP cohort. Because schools are there to educate. I don't disagree that many children, especially those with a parent who offends so seriously they are imprisoned, need services such as counselling, family outreach or mentoring. I do disagree that teachers are the best people to assess and provide those services.

I think that, mostly, YANBU. Children of criminals should be given every possible support to succeed and not perpetuate the cycle.

But I think you'd have to be sure that the money would be helpful before allocating it.

I've only ever known 2 children whose parent/s were in prison. Both were pupils at the very expensive private school I teach in. Both were hugely affected and damaged by the experience. But they didn't need money to fix the situation. They had money. What they needed was a stable adult who loved them and could look after them and help them heal.

I've only ever known 2 children whose parent/s were in prison. Both were pupils at the very expensive private school I teach in.

It's possible, and I make this point with due deference, that their experience may not be entirely reflective of the typical child whose father is imprisoned. The clue is possibly in the phrase "very expensive private school".

Maybe pupil premium money can be provide to pay for a mentor who can be that adult to help them heal. Giving the family money is pointless, but schools are uniquely placed to mentor a child. Having a mentor is different from mental health services, it's prevention rather than cure.

Maybe pupil premium money can be provide to pay for a mentor who can be that adult to help them heal...schools are uniquely placed to mentor a child

Completely agree. I was at primary school (about a hundred years ago) with a boy whose father got a life sentence for the attempted murder of his wife, the boy's mother. She was very disabled by the attack and unable to look after her son, so he went into care. This must have been right at the end of primary school. This boy was very good at sport and had a good relationship with the PE teacher, and after he transferred to secondary school he used to come back on Friday afternoons to hang out at the primary and help the PE teacher with Friday afternoon sports. I was about 9 or 10 at the time and remember him visiting, and with retrospect he wasn't really doing much to help, just kind of hanging out with a male role model. Nothing was ever discussed about what had happened in his family, it was just a kind of low key nice time for him and obvious that his time with the PE teacher was one of the few things in his life that he enjoyed and looked forward to. Anyhoo, for some reason, the head told him he had to stop coming so regularly - either she felt it was an obstacle to him moving on, or maybe someone had complained about an adolescent boy hanging round the junior sports club, or whatever, I don't know. Not long after that, we heard that he had run away from the children's home he was living in, and had committed suicide by walking out in front of a train. Really so tragic. This was nearly 40 years ago and I've never forgotten him. Even back in the 1970s I'm sure he would have been provided with counselling etc, but what was really keeping the wheels on for him was a comfortable mentoring relationship with an adult he liked and trusted. The PE teacher is dead now too, and I've often wished his family had known what he did for that boy.

I have relatives who have been in prison, in fact one branch are basically criminals and three generations one after the other have all been inside. There is a new generation a son who is about 7, I fear for his future.

You are a decent person op whose heart is in the right place but I can assure you PP would make bugger all difference to people like that part of my family. They are the kind that would just take advantage of people like you and find it hilarious and call you a stupid bitch, they really are scum if I'm honest.

I have done bad stuff as I have a serious MH problem, its only when Im really unwell and suffering from psychosis that I have done stuff. You probably want to believe as do all liberal minded folk that there is a reason people turn to crime, often there is but sometimes there isn't. I'm not a bad person but I have done bad things due to my MH whereas my relatives are just bad people.

Some of the poorest people I have known have the strongest moral codes to live by.

We need more support across the board. Fair enough means testing funds which go directly to the family, but schools and other children's services need a bigger support budget in general. The single most detrimental thing to my education was not being statemented - not having a diagnosis until university (which I got into via basically affirmative action, where with the right opportunities I'd've been there at 18 from hard earned grades). There needs to be support on the basis of a child's needs as observed by those who work with the child, rather than relying on a piece of paper to get funding allocated.

In my case, diagnosis was a means to an end r.e. mentoring support money at uni, and it's not much different at school. I had a psychiatrist tell me that I "will never" be employed now that I "have to" declare my diagnosis of ASD, in spite of my having had jobs prior to university. The diagnosis I could live without, but the support funding unfortunately I couldn't. In short, why does there need to be a reason other than that the child is clearly struggling and would benefit from a tailored support plan? Surely we can measure the benefit of extra funding by documenting outcomes, rather than requiring boxes be ticked before we start.

Smallwood, no seven year old child is scum. Just because a child has awful parents so no reason to give up on them. Perhaps it's every reason to try harder and have hope that being bad is not entirely genetic.

"I had a psychiatrist tell me that I "will never" be employed now that I "have to" declare my diagnosis of ASD, in spite of my having had jobs prior to university."

He is talking out his bottom. There is something called the disablity discrimination act. When you have applied for jobs in the past have you ever been asked about autism.