DfE finds that higher parental incomes buy better educational outcomes

[noblegiraffe]

In a piece of research that will surprise no one, it turns out that children of wealthier parents do better at school.

However, while it is obvious that PP students and especially FSM pupils perform particularly badly, pupils from below-median-income families perform lower than, but more in line with children from wealthier families than with PP pupils.

What the DfE really want to know in this consultation, however, is whether they should refer to below-median-income families who don't qualify for PP as 'Ordinary Working Families'.

consult.education.gov.uk/school-leadership-analysis-unit/analysing-family-circumstances-and-education-1/

Good to know that they are spending their time and effort focusing on the key issues in education at the moment.

No, extra places on the trip are paid for, in the usual manner (by parents) on a first come, first served basis.

The teacher running the trip says 'I don't have time to organise all that paperwork, the 2 remaining seats will have to go empty'.

Love the idea of a TA being hired on a 95% contract studiously avoiding any non-PP kids in the classroom.

And the idea of different schools pooling their PP kids so any intervention isn't contaminated by the wrong sort of child. Who will pay for bussing them around from intervention to intervention by the way?

Just so you can keep your boxes all neat and tidy.

The teacher running the trip says 'I don't have time to organise all that paperwork, the 2 remaining seats will have to go empty'.

So be it. Most schools manage to organise trips as I have outlined so the ones who 'don't have time' will look pretty bad in comparison.

Love the idea of a TA being hired on a 95% contract studiously avoiding any non-PP kids in the classroom.

A short intervention for PP qualifying students can take place away from the classroom, if this was going to pose a problem. Either that or some of his or her time should be funded from elsewhere. Once the TA's PP input has finished he or she she could take another group of PP qualifying students for another intervention or spend time with the same group in extension activities.

And the idea of different schools pooling their PP kids so any intervention isn't contaminated by the wrong sort of child. Who will pay for bussing them around from intervention to intervention by the way?

Schools have been known to find collaborating with other schools, for various activities, very beneficial. Many schools are in walking distance to each other, especially at primary. Any PP funding could be justified in supporting PP qualifying groups collaborating together. It would also provide opportunity for educational professionals to share their experience and expertise.

Just so you can keep your boxes all neat and tidy.

No, so there is proper accountability and meaningful data for the research. Otherwise the needs of students qualifying for PP are not truly identified and addressed. The attainment gap between them another students remains too wide.

Most schools manage to organise trips as I have outlined

Funnily enough, I know how normal school trips are run. This wasn't one.

Many schools are in walking distance to each other

So now we're having primary school kids needing escorting to other schools by a member of staff, missing school in order to access an intervention that could have taken place at their own school? Also I don't know about your primary school but for my DS to get to the nearest primary would be about an hour of walking in total, along a main road.

Secondary schools are not normally in walking distance of each other.

Yes schools collaborating together is good, but the idea of doing it just so you can justify 5% of a TA's time is ridiculous.

The thing is, you appear to be coming at this from the perspective of a parent of a (primary aged?) kid with SEN with no actual experience of how schools work. I'm talking about a real trip, a real TA, real interventions. You're making stuff up as you go along.

The thing is, you appear to be coming at this from the perspective of a parent of a (primary aged?) kid with SEN with no actual experience of how schools work. I'm talking about a real trip, a real TA, real interventions. You're making stuff up as you go along.

You are wrong there, noble.

My DC is has been at secondary for some years now. His Statement was ceased years ago and he no longer receives additional support for any SEN. He is doing well, better than would be expected for his age in many subjects.

I know how trips are organised and interventions are organised. I have done some work with schools before and I know how the schools I have had direct experience of organise their trips.

So now we're having primary school kids needing escorting to other schools by a member of staff, missing school in order to access an intervention that could have taken place at their own school? Also I don't know about your primary school but for my DS to get to the nearest primary would be about an hour of walking in total, along a main road.

Your son's circumstances does not negate the fact many schools are within walking distance to each other. Interventions can still take place at their own school too. Smaller more focussed groups can be used, cross age group groups can be used. Added to this IT facilities can be used to aid collaboration.

Yes schools collaborating together is good, but the idea of doing it just so you can justify 5% of a TA's time is ridiculous.

Realistically, we are talking about far more than 5% of a TA's time. In a group of 10 children, for PP targeted intervention, if just one child was not in receipt of PP, that would be 10% of the TA's time, for a start, if 2 or more children 20% and so on. The research gets skewed further every time practice such as this occurs never mind not addressing the needs of the children in receipt of PP who did not receive anything because their attainment was already high enough not to draw any attention.

It appears you want to minimise and dismiss every single point I am making. It seems to me, from your posts, noble, educational professionals are extremely motivated towards gaining additional funding and employing additional staff. However they are, apparently, less motivated towards accounting truthfully for where the additional funding has been spent, targeting funding towards where it lawfully is supposed to go and utilising additional staff in order to benefit the children they have actually been employed to help. Also there doesn't seem to be much motivation, apparent from your posts, for genuinely identifying the educational needs of this target group and actually meeting them.

Oh, and I also have a honours degree in English and Education, specialising in Early Years. I have taught before, and have worked for a children's charity, in a professional capacity, for several years. I have had a longer break from work, than was probably wise, career wise. The necessary advocating for my child, in terms of his education, has meant undergoing paid work would have been made extremely difficult.

But you have no experience of the particular trip I am talking about.

And a TA can address more than one child at the same time

Also, you have no idea about my experience of PP kids and what I've done to support them.

Yes schools can collaborate and so on, but that is impractical for every single pound of PP money. Sometimes resources bought for PP pupils will also benefit other pupils. And that's not a bad thing.

But you have no experience of the particular trip I am talking about.

No, granted. But that is just one example.

And a TA can address more than one child at the same time

I do know this. It doesn't negate what I have said.

Yes schools can collaborate and so on, but that is impractical for every single pound of PP money.

I never suggested schools need to collaborate for every single pound spent of PP money.

It does negate what you said. 2 PP kids in a class of 10 does not mean that they take up 20% of the TA's time.

You do seem to think that measures should be taken so that no non-PP pupil benefits from a resource paid for out of PP money, no matter how impractical that ends up being.

You do seem to think that measures should be taken so that no non-PP pupil benefits from a resource paid for out of PP money, no matter how impractical that ends up being.

No, I did also say, as a compromise, where this was unavoidable and funds could not be taken from elsewhere, it should be recorded where students, who are not qualified for PP, have benefitted from resources paid for out of PP money, and the data adjusted to show this. Just, you know, so the data is not skewed and the needs of those qualifying for PP are not conflated with other student's additional needs.

2 PP kids in a class of 10 does not mean that they take up 20% of the TA's time.

They have the opportunity to take up 20% of that TA's time in that class of 10. More, if their additional needs are significant.

and the data adjusted to show this

What data?

The data which is used to interpret the success of the interventions. Don't tell me nothing is recorded? Things are worse than I assumed...

How would you propose to measure the individual improvement caused by going on a school trip so accurately that you could then 'remove' that improvement from any other student who went on the trip?

GCSE results are the most objective assessment of outcomes.

It just needs to be recorded which pupils have participated in interventions funded through PP, how they were selected and the proportion of those pupils that participated which qualify for PP.

Then there needs to be facility for analysing this data.

How the participating group faired compared to other pupils. How the PP participating group faired compared to the PP non participating group. How the PP participating group faired compared to the non PP participating group. How the PP non participating group faired compared to the non PP non participating group. How the non PP non participating group faired compared to PP participating group. For each intervention.

that you could then 'remove' that improvement from any other student who went on the trip?

You don't remove the improvement from the students that participated who do not qualify for PP. The fact they are not in receipt of PP is noted. This is done so that any improvement, resulting from the intervention, is not conflated with improvements in students qualifying for PP.

You're trying to approach this like a clinical trial. Individual schools do not have the resources to do it properly.

I know, I used to work in clinical trials.

There doesn't need to be that many resources. Which pupils attend which interventions, have TA resource attached to them, is recorded anyway. How funding is spent is recorded anyway. Progress data and attainment grades are recorded anyway. Who qualifies for PP is recorded anyway. Which children have SEN and SN is recorded anyway. All that someone has to do is join up the dots from existing data.

This, joining of the dots, can, quite rightfully, be funded through PP funding. It benefits the PP qualifying group because it helps inform on and identify their differing educational needs and how to meet them successfully.

Tbh, once all the data is available, it would only be a few hours work for one person.

Yes but each student doesn't have a straightforward profile for comparison. If student X does well in maths is it because of the maths trip they went on, or the intervention sessions? Is it because they really clicked with a particular maths teacher, or maybe because they attended maths revision sessions for their class where their attendance wasn't recorded because it wasn't a PP intervention? Or maybe it was because they'd been given free revision guides? Or it could be something like their new stepmum is good at maths and has started tutoring them. Maybe it wasn't anything to do with maths but they have a place at college so long as they pass their GCSEs and this has motivated them? Or their dad has promised them a reward if they pass. Or maybe they got assigned an awesome mentor. Or their new boyfriend is in top set and they worked together.

The data is too messy, the outcomes too broad for that sort of pinpoint accuracy.

Yes but you are never going to find any patterns in the data, if there is no attempt made to draw any comparisons. You will never have any hope in finding out which interventions have been successful. How else are you measuring the success of individual interventions?

You can say stuff like 'with the maths interventions we have put in place for our PP students, our maths pass rate for that group went from 30% to 50% blah blah levels of progress blah' but you wouldn't be able to say stuff like 'giving free revision guides improved students by 1 GCSE grade while 1-1 support improved students by 2 grades' because it's highly unlikely that a school will give 1-1 support to one group of students and free revision guides to a similar but separate group of students.

So how are you determining which PP interventions are the most successful for PP qualifying students, noble? How are you ensuring an 'evidence based approach', for this group of students regarding utilising their targeted funding?

I'm not doing anything. Not my pay grade!

Like I said though I did used to work in clinical trials so I do know if you want to isolate effectiveness of individual interventions then you'd need to be a bit more clever about it than sitting down one night with a spreadsheet of random bits of data.

I'm not doing anything. Not my pay grade

Oh, I thought the way you were talking, you had an input into the decision making over what could be deemed useful or feasible, noble.

Like I said though I did used to work in clinical trials so I do know if you want to isolate effectiveness of individual interventions then you'd need to be a bit more clever about it than sitting down one night with a spreadsheet of random bits of data.

Social science and developing educational pedagogy, will always be undertaken in the context of many more uncontrolled variables than clinical trials, though. This is well known. Doesn't take away the need for it.