To wonder if all schools do this

[woodenfences]

Been teaching a while.

Every single school I’ve worked in has been adamant that it’s catchment area is deprived. I have worked in no less than five schools claiming to be in one of the most deprived areas of the country.

They aren’t. They are bog standard normal schools.

AIBU to wonder if all schools do this and why?

[steppemum]

a previous PP said pupil premiun isn't only an indication of deprivation as it is also received by kids in the forces etc.

That is very true, but unless you are in an army town, the vats majority of Pupil Premium does come from FSM
The reason forces kids are in receipt of it is because again, statistically, they do worse academically due to high mobility, and the pupil premium is supposed to help close the gap

[steppemum]

deprived is something that is easy to see, you just look at the % of FSM.
It may not be the perfect measure, but it is the only quantifiable measure.

So our school has around 35% FSM
National average is much less (20%??)

So our school is deprived.
I think about half or maybe more of the schools in our town would count as deprived.
All the schools in the next town over would come in as under the national average.

Statistically, yes children who are in receipt of FSM do worse academically, it is a crude but effective way of saying if this child/school needs more help.
The sole purpose of Pupil Premium funding is the close the gap between kids who get FSM and the kids who don't

[YeOldeTrout]

"they still insisted some * children were deprived."
(*bold is mine)

You're not making sense. Do you believe if a school is an affluent area that NO pupils can possibly come from a poor household?

That is especially unlikely to be true in rural areas; hidden poverty, all that.

[woodenfences]

As a rule I find it is not something shared with parents. It is something teachers insist on when talking amongst themselves.

[YeOldeTrout]

None of our local schools are in deprived areas, I haven't been to any open evenings describing their catchment as deprived. Not even the school with headline 50% GCSE pass rates.
Educational attainment for county is below national average. Some of the poorest LSOAs in UK (IMD2015) are in this county, none of the richest, but overall a very middle SES county.

[Notveryadventurousname]

Pupil Premium is not the only measure of deprivation. In fact it's quite limiting as it focuses on FSM and many low income working families on tax credits don't qualify. And of course, even some of those who are eligible don't claim it.

Schools are just as likely to refer to the ONS Index of Deprivation. This splits England and Wales into about 35,000 small areas (this is from memory so not exact). The types of deprivation most commonly quoted by schools are IMD or index of multiple deprivation and IDACI; income deprivation affecting children index. The scores of various deprivation measures are calculated and the areas are ranked from 1 (most deprived) to 35,000 (least deprived) nationally. If a school says its catchment is deprived, it probably means the catchment area (or location of the school site), is ranked between 1 and 3500 on this list.....these areas are the most deprived 10% of in England and Wales. .Some schools may still say they are deprived if they fall in the top 20 or 30 % , particularly they are surrounded by less deprived areas and are trying to make a point.....it's all relative.

Schools can also use a deprivation score for each pupil based on the area of the pupil home address (not individual circumstances). This creates create an average deprivation score for the school. A school located in a highly deprived area could have a less deprived pupil intake (a faith school maybe, where children are more likely to travel to attend) and vice versa.

I don't think schools will make these things up, they are well aware that they need evidence to claim deprivation, whether it's for a funding bid or to contextualise progress/results. But if they have the choice, they will pick and choose from the deprivation measures for the one that best suits their purpose. So a head teacher with a fairly middling deprivation level based on pupil residence could focus instead on the fact that the school building or catchment is located in a highly deprived area...even if they have many pupils coming from somewhere less deprived. Phew.....sorry for the long reply!

Might have got some of that wrong but hopefully gives an idea of how your perception might differ from what your school says.

[SuburbanRhonda]

I’m sorry to hear that, wooden.

[woodenfences]

Are very lucky, sorry.

[woodenfences]

Do you think every thread on here is bothered by something? I don’t think they are. Perhaps you aren’t very lucky and have a lot of people to chat about things to. I don’t have that.

[SuburbanRhonda]

Yes, I wonder about a lot of things but few of them translate into a thread on mumsnet .

[woodenfences]

I don’t recall saying I was bothered by it One can wonder through mere curiosity rather than be actually bothered or disturbed or worried by something, after all.

[SuburbanRhonda]

Why are you so bothered by it, OP?

[Matildatoldsuchdreadfullies]

We live in an area which is apparently deprived. I didn't know that this was the case - but it's proved very useful to DD, who was able to get on to the widening participation summer school at Oxford, and should get the benefit of lower university offers .

I'd guess that on paper the primary school my children attended was tolerably deprived - but it also had a fair sprinkling of university lecturers, doctors, teachers, etc., among the parents. In contrast, some of the other local primaries are much more deprived - but this may not show on paper.

[Foenie]

It really depends on where you work. I have worked in many different schools over the decade and a half I've been teaching and there is a clear difference between real deprivation and pretend deprivation.

One school in a truly deprived area I've been working in had more than 1/3 of its children 'at risk' (of abuse/ exploitation/ homelessness etc.) in some way or another and around 60% PP/FSM.

You could tell the difference between pupils in that school and Leafy High I worked in before that, where about 20% of children were from a deprived background (and some were dirt poor, but still no comparison to the shit some of the others had to put up with).

As an aside, FSM and PP aren't always an indicator of deprivation. I cannot remember which, but of of the two would also apply to children of parents in the Armed Forces.

[AnotherPidgey]

My city has a poor educational record. The schools tend to be quite polarised with affluent, aspirational families flocking to certain catchments, leaving a large proportion of schools with higher deprivation and low aspirations. There is a significant core of long term struggling schools in and out of special meaures despite regular rebranding and changes of management. What they really need is consistent, long term support to help specific community issues not poncey new uniforms and self agrandising new heads that last two years

Around the county, there are a lot of former pit towns with a lot of white, working class deprivation. Traditionally, education was not valued highly in these communities as it didn't add much value to men who spent their working lives down the pits anyway. Social change is much slower than economic reality.

In other parts of the county, the rural school basicly educate anyone human of the appropriate age group in that area which can pick up a notable level of disadvantage in schools that are superficially quite middle class.

[woodenfences]

Well yeah - relative poverty though.

[blueberryporridge]

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/child-poverty-increase-children-family-benefit-households-a8268191.html

Link to support the percentage in my post above.

[PumpkinPie2016]

I work in a fairly bog standard comprehensive and we don't claim to be in a deprived area.

We are in a town which has been in the news as being one of the most deprived towns in the country (and looking at the town as a whole, I would say that's pretty accurate) but the part of town we are in is quite an affluent area. Not mega posh but certainly fairly middle class. You do, of course, still have families who are suffering deprivation but they are not in a majority.

You don't have to go far though to find some quite serious deprivation so many teachers who teach in our town would be able to accurately say they teach in deprived areas.

[blueberryporridge]

Statistically do children from deprived families have lower attainment?

Yes.

The attainment gap kicks in before they even start school.

30% of children are now living in poverty and the figure is expected to rise. Unless you live in some sort of wealthy gated community, the chances are that there are children living in poverty pretty close to you.

The number of children living in poverty, and the effects that poverty has on their life chances, is something that we should all be very ashamed of in this country. It doesn't have to be this way.

[ManInTheMoonMarigold]

Statistically, 'most deprived' is usually used to refer to areas in the bottom 20% of the Index of Multiple Deprivation.

If you have been working in a northern city, a coastal area or a more remote rural area, it is not at all impossible that amongst the local areas making up a school's catchment area, there is one area in that bottom 20%.

More than half of the local areas making up places like Birmingham and Liverpool are in the bottom 20% nationally, so a significant proportion of schools in those areas will be able to say that within their catchment there is at least one area that is 'most deprived'.

[wildbhoysmama]

My school has 80% of pupils in SIMD 1-3, so we are indeed in an extremely deprived area. I don't know what would be gained by a school claiming to be more deprived than they are, it's fact not opinion.

[NellWilsonsWhiteHair]

I recognise the phenomenon you mean, OP. I have definitely known a number of teachers from schools across different parts of London making pretty much that claim. I have never known the schools in question to know how truthful those claims have been... I inwardly raise an eyebrow at ALL of these somehow places being 'the most blah blah blah', but I think that may be me being pedantic and what they really mean is, this area is pretty bleak and comes with these specific challenges - it may or may not actually top any list.

For all I've known, they might all be telling the truth. Definitely I see very high levels of deprivation for the children in my son's school, which manifest in all sorts of different ways. It sounds like you don't entirely buy it for the schools you've known, based on your own experiences of them, and I can well believe there is kudos for some teachers in talking up this issue - deprivation top trumps style.

[ohreallyohreallyoh]

Pupil premium is a top up for kids who are eligible for free school meals - not sure of the criteria but I think certain benefits and low family income?

No. Pupil Premium is an amount paid to schools for every student who is currently eligible or has been eligible in the past 6 years for free school meals. It is not money that is necessarily spent directly on the child. There are other children eligible including LAC and military children who may or may not have ever been eligible to receive free school meals.

[Housewife2010]

As a teacher surely you know that it should be "no fewer"?

[MsMotherOfDragons]

• irrelevant