To dislike the fact my child is assumed to be failing

[sandsandthesea]

Because she’s on free school meals?

Tbh I'd not take offence and just take the extra stuff, the school gets the money for your child and needs to spend it. Whether it's fair or not is another issue entirely.

If she's already doing well then the extra stuff is just a bonus. I understand why you're narked, I think I would be a little rubbed up by it initially, but don't see it as an assumption she's failing but just that children from families of lower income do sometimes need that extra support. Your child's teacher will be well aware she's doing fine.

I wish I had got this as a child, even though I was bright we could never afford to do anything curricular like music etc and I always wish I had, even now at 29.

Plenty of wealthier parents with high achieving children pay for additional tuition for their children. Additional tuition does not mean a child is failing. It’s a fantastic opportunity to improve confidence, cover more ground, improve any areas that require it and help the child to excel in that subject. The school shouldn’t be presenting it as a negative or something that would cause embarrassment.

And you say she’s not musical - maybe that’s because she’s never done it? My mum couldn’t afford music lessons for me and I showed no natural ability but I decided when I was 12 that I wanted to play the flute. I saved up and bought a crap second hand one. I had a lot of support from the school and by the time I was 18 I was grade 5 or higher in three instruments and got my music A-level.

When my kids are older I’ll take any opportunities I can get for them to improve and to try out new things.

fo what it is worth, we get FSM, and both mine are at super selective grammars and PP is entirley not needed to close any gap, as ther eisn't any,

BUT, school allows us to apply for the funding for trips, uniform etc to make sure they are accessing everything that their peers access.

Tbh they are just using up the pupil premium. It's not their fault you have a chip on your shoulder.

The number of PP children at "ordinary" grammar schools-let alone super selective ones-is so small as to be practically undetectable. Which is proof positive that more needs to be done to "close the gap".....

I'm not sure if this point has been made (I've scrolled down quite far!) but schools have to be shown to be spending the pupil premium money to ONLY benefit those pupils whose parents are in receipt of certain benefits or meet the criteria for the pupil premium grant. Some of those children are achieving below average but many others are not. But they also have to be shown to be receiving some kind of benefit from the pupil premium grant. The school would fail ofsted if they didn't make provision for ALL pupils who receive the grant. Whether you agree with the use of the money or not, it is not the school's initiative, it's money from the government and they want it spent on each pupil who it entitled to it.

I think the problem with grammars is also the amount that go from private schools at ks1/ks2 into them.

step
We are only allowed to use it for trips linkes to gcses.

The sad thing is that cultural capital and broad experiences beyond class are such big things. (It makes me.think of the SATS paper where to understand it you really needed to know what a theatre looked like)

I was looking at a job in the independent sector. There's a massive difference. Children there get additional time for games, prep time is included during the school day, enrichment time is built into the curriculum, trips to enhance thr curriculum are standard (not all expensive either). Then you add in all thr socio-economic benefits.
It's not difficult to see how/why those children leave more rounded than children in one of my previous schools where you'd be lucky to get some of them into school, home weren't supportive, doing any enrichment other tham dance/football was enough to get ridiculed, almost no uptake on fully funded trips because going to the theatre was considered posh. The dominant attitude was 'turn up most of the time, get through the day and count down til y11'.

Just be glad the pp is fenceposted and not able to spent on anything unlike the sen budget where there is in no way enough cash.

Why the need to be so defensive? Being offered extra tuition doesn't mean it is assume the child is failing.

My DS has been told he needs to attend extra tuition too because he is failing behind. That is behind his targets, except that his targets have been set at a totally ridiculous level since he is supposed to achieve 9 in all GCSE subjects. He is clever and capable, but that's a bit too much. As he is currently (Y10) working towards grades 7 or 8 in most, he is deemed by the computer as behind.

His teachers have said that he really doesn't need to go but DS has said he will actually attend some lessons because it won't do any harm.

Just be thankful for the opportunity.

Maybe but my daughter doesn’t have to do them.

The school is legally required to show that they have used the Pupil Premium Grant to provide extra support to the children who are entitled to it.

Schools are also required to offer additional intervention for highly able students to make sure that they don't get bored and plateau. This does not mean they are failing. All they want is for your daughter to make the same amount of progress as her peers.

And then maybe we can start getting into why you think it's so damn wrong of schools to try and help children who fall into a category which is known for lending itself.to lower educational outcomes.

Ahhh no you don't get to set up a straw man. I didn't say it was wrong of schools to help children, and you KNOW I didn't say that. I said it is humiliating for parents to have their children herded off for extra lessons they do not, in fact, need, based on the income of their household.

But they also have to be shown to be receiving some kind of benefit from the pupil premium grant.

no they don't
The school has to use it to close the gap, if there is no gap, then the child doesn't need to have any money spent on them at all.

This is funny because my kids were on FSM last year when I was on mat leave and when I asked about using their PP for some extra maths tuition for my son I was told that PP all goes into one big pot and is used for the wider benefit of all school pupils.

I teach in a primary school and we have to document for each child who is eligible for the grant what support they are getting. Two years ago I taught a boy who was achieving very well in all areas but we still needed to provide extra support for him to extend him even more. Perhaps not every school does this but the OP's school is like mine.

Steppemum so if an fsm child is achieving in line with expectations for their age with no support whatsoever, you don't believe that some targeted support could make them above average?

Like all generalisations there are exceptions to the rule, but posters are correct that AS A GROUP children on FSM are less likely to achieve well in school.

My son is July born. He may well be a genius, who knows, but i am aware that he is more likely to need help in school esp in the early years. This is not me writing him off. This is me recognising a disadvantage he has vs children in his class born Sept-Dec. And i will be delighted for every bit of extra help he is offered to try and close that gap.

The school needs to look at ways to ensure that PP pupils receive the support without anyone else being aware of the issue. Nobody wants to be in the ‘poor family’ category and school should be a place where everyone feels equal.

So good initiative being clumsily applied.

( that notwithstanding I’d take everything they offer like a shot)

I think all schools use it in different ways. At my GSs school they subsidize the school bus for PP pupils, I think they pay 50% of the normal price, no one knows unless the child chooses to tell them. The other money provides things like summer school for children falling behind and PP pupils can apply for help e.g. towards music lessons or sports clubs.

At my kids old school the children can bank 50% of the money every year, they are encouraged to do it and then use it for school trips so maybe they wouldn't be able to afford to go skiing in year 9 but 3 years PP money will pay for it or at least make it cheaper, the rest of the money goes on things like revision books, help with computers and internet if families need it.

I think it is a great thing to help kids who might miss out on things. The problem locally, so my kids heard from classmates, is some business owners, often farmers locally due to where we are, pay themselves a very small wage while living in a beautiful farmhouse, kids have ponies and a great standard of living but still get free school meals and PP help. One child we knew had a father working abroad, mother claimed benefits as a single parent and child got all the help going whilst also getting holidays round the world, expensive presents and every advantage going, she actually told my kids we were stupid to pay bus fares and school meals when you could get it all for free. I guess every system can be exploited and better that some get things they shouldn't rather than the kids it is intended to help miss out.

Disgraceful

As a teacher, it annoys me that a lot of children miss out because they are not PP. Their parents are either resistant to claiming benefits or do not understand the system. Or they don't qualify even those they are clearly in financial difficulties.

But other children who are adopted or have parents in the forces are PP. They don't have the unsettled lives or disadvantages that go with being adopted or having parents in the forces, but they benefit anyway.

It would be better if PP money could be spent on those in need rather than those on the list, but it's the way the system is at present. Our PP kids get free revision guides, subsidised trips and first call on extra tuition but only if they are deemed to be likely to benefit. We wouldn't force a child who was on target and doing well to accept extra help against parents' wishes.

If you don’t want her having the extra support and it’s after school why do you not just collect her at normal home time so she doesn’t have to go?

I think Mum is right to refuse shitty 'targeted' intervention. After school with a teacher the child doesn't like. When the child is already at target. Yes she could attend to do even better, but perhaps she happy to study on her own. Hardly sounds like the school's provision is using their PP budget to give those kids the best. If they're just throwing in a supply teacher, it will be hard to recruit many children to the cause, even less likely the ones who really need it.

I don't think saying 'she isn't musical' is necessarily low aspirational. Maybe her child generally shows no interest in music at this point.

Schools have to explain their PP strategy and publish it - if you look on their website you’ll see what the money is being spent on, and why.