I am preparing my DS for 7+. Can I ask his classroom teacher to tutor him him after school?

[computer1000]

I am preparing my DS for 7+. Can I ask his classroom teacher to tutor him him after school? she does not necessarily need to tutor for 7+ - just covering maths skills overall?

Yet all lumped together under a single heading/label!

I don't think tether said that, or even intimated it mrz.

I didn't say tethered did but sadly that's exactly how the system works.

So a child who need help may miss out because they don't fit into any of the arbitrary PP groups.

I agree mrz. Sadly, it's not about the children anymore, it's about the data and 'targets'.

The PP groups aren't arbitrary. They match, at a population level, the groups of children who significantly and consistently underperform.

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that it is a way to identify all children who underperform. Rather it is a way of reducing barriers to those with known issues that typically lead to low performance.

I was thinking exactly same as jellyfrizz
It is so painful to see you argue with pp without any valid reason these days, mrz.
What's wrong? You were/are my star. You were/are my inspiration.

sorry, cross post.

That's the problem though scaevola - at a population level.

Children are individuals with unique circumstances. Not everyone fits into a tidy box.

It's too simplistic to say a child will underperform because parents are unemployed (when in fact the family income is more than parents working for minimum wage) and the child is performing significantly better than their peers. Meanwhile a child who is struggling doesn't qualify or a low income family struggle to pay for sports equipment but again don't qualify for support because they don't meet the criteria. ...

I think the phrase is "making the perfect the enemy of the good"

It is right that children who are facing identifiable disadvantage receive extra support, even if some would surmount it anyhow without the extra assistance.

It's stuffing children into nice pigeonholes even if they don't fit

Yes scaevola, in an ideal world, there would be funding for all children who fall under PP criteria AND also those who are needing support but don't meet the criteria.

When we have a situation where there isn't enough funding, is it right that a child who is doing really well academically is getting money to learn an instrument when another is struggling to read?

(I wish everyone had a chance to learn a musical instrument btw!).

"So you think every LAC child is the same? And are LAC for the same reason?"

Nothing I have posted suggests that that is my view, mrz.

Treating LAC (and former LAC) as a separate and distinct group with needs which are very likely to differ from those of the general school population is not in itself a bad thing. Recognising that the vast majority of LAC have experienced trauma great enough to meet the threshold for removal from their families, trauma induced by the separation from their families and increased risks to academic achievement such as placement instability and frequent school moves is not 'thinking that every LAC is the same'; it's acknowledging that children in care face issues which the vast majority of children in the general population don't.

As before, whilst I think the LAC PP is a bit of a blunt instrument, recognising that trauma-experienced children are likely to have different needs than children from stable homes is a very good thing. IME, this is something which many schools still do not understand.

"When we have a situation where there isn't enough funding, is it right that a child who is doing really well academically is getting money to learn an instrument when another is struggling to read?"

I agree that the funding situation for schools is awful- but I don't think the answer is to claw back a life-enriching experience from a child who is unlikely to otherwise have the chance to learn an instrument, perhaps join an orchestra, make connections outside of school etc.

I think the answer is more funding.

As Safeguarding lead I encounter children who live far from stable (or happy) lives but don't fall under the LAC umbrella. Children who fail to thrive because they are hungry, cold, tired, ill dressed or don't attend regularly yet aren't LAC

I'm sure you do- and I know how frustrating that can be. Unfortunately, the outcomes of children on the edge of care are not measured in the same way or in the same depth.

Interestingly, a recent report from the Rees centre suggested that the impact of children's pre-care experiences outweighs the impact of being in care on educational outcomes:

The studies reviewed suggest that the relationship between being in care and low educational outcomes is partly explained by pre-care experiences, such as maltreatment and neglect. The difficulties faced by these young people may pre-date entry into care but even if reduced, in some studies these persisted once in care.

It also suggests that being in care does not exacerbate or reduce these difficulties- so, in one sense, this supports what you are saying. It certainly tackles the accepted idea that it is the care system which damages the educational outcomes of children, although it recognises the issues which come with being in care, such as placement/school moves.

I would advocate (and anticipate) the broadening of the virtual head's remit to include children in need and adopted children- but I see the identification of LAC as a separate and distinct group as a step forwards on this path, not backwards. For the first time, discussions are being had in school about the impact of trauma and neglect on children's behaviour, relationships and learning, and that is a very good thing.

Also, I think we need to be supporting children who have been removed from and subsequently returned to their families. These children are not treated as previously LAC.

That's the problem with education in England at the moment. Only what can be measured is treated as important.

That's exactly my point tethered the system is flawed and funding isn't going where needed but where fits criteria determined by people only interested in spreadsheets not real children

schools have always been having these discussions IMHE tethered teachers have long been frustrated by the system and PP can present another frustration.

Mrz, I have no argument with your assertion that the system is flawed. It's a shambles- but this does not mean that targeting LAC is a waste of money. It just means that there is not enough funding to effectively educate all children. And that is abhorrent.

Schools have most certainly not always been having these discussions. Most are still not having them now. You only have to glance at the exclusion statistics to see how over-represented LAC are; many schools are unaware of how a history of neglect, trauma and abuse can manifest in children's behaviour, let alone employ effective strategies to deal with it. I'm glad your school does not fall into this category.

IME, designated teachers for LAC have difficulty in knowing how to spend the LAC PP- however, once they have some experience of how to spend it effectively, they become more confident. The problem is often senior management refusing to support the spend identified at the child's PEP, and instead wishing to absorb it into the budget. This is not how it should be used. TBH, I am not convinced that schools are always in the best position to spend the money; the responsibility is often devolved to them by the virtual head due to logistics. Virtual schools usually do not have the capacity to organise the budget in any other way.

I do feel bad for the OP here- her poor thread! Perhaps we should continue the discussion on another thread.

My dd's tutor is a primary school teacher, it is not the school they attend though.

I don't have any problem knowing how to spend the money for our LAC pupils but I do have problems sleeping for worrying about the children who are falling between the labels

I'm not sure what you want me to do about that, mrz. I have already stated that I would like and expect to see a broadening of the virtual head's remit. How effective this could be is largely dependent on the whims of a government intent on dismantling the education system.

My point, to bring the topic back to the OP, was that schools often use LAC PP to buy in 1:1 tuition for children in care, and that there should not be a blanket ban on using the money for tuition or, IMO, on teachers privately tutoring students.

You state that you do not use LAC PP for tuition for any LAC at your school. I'm sure that this decision is reached through carefully considered discussion with teachers and consultation with the virtual head about each individual child via the PEP.

I'm also sure that, should a LAC who had it as a clearly identified need were to begin at your school in January, you would use the LAC PP to pay for 1:1 tuition.