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.

Parents with money "can" pay for tutors or independent schools

But you still need the will to be there and for the parents to understand the importance of a good education etc even if they have money. There are parents who have money but don't value education especially if they didn't acquire their wealth as a result of their own education (ie from inheritances or marrying into a wealthy family or a lottery win, etc). Such people may still do nothing more than send their kids to the local comp. Or may send their kids to an expensive private school, but without the work ethic and educational values, the kids still won't come out with a string of top qualifications.

I'm not arguing that money isn't an important factor - it clearly is. But some people with money still won't "buy" the top education for their children or their children will squander their opportunities. Some without money will still support their kids to a successful outcome either by hands-on direct help, or just ensuring an environment that supports learning. Money is one part of the overall jigsaw puzzle.

This kind of thought could be a pretty insidious and divisive. It suggests we are actually living in a meritocracy! That those at a disadvantage, are so because of some fault within themselves(?)

Are you denying that there are some at a disadvantage who are their own worst enemy and responsible (at least partly) for their own unfortunately circumstances? Surely not everyone who is "disadvantaged" is entirely innocent and culpable for their own position? (And yes, I know that some, maybe many, I don't know, will have suffered an unfortunate sequence of events, but surely not all?).

TBH, clarity, that argument has been made before and that the current decrease in social mobility is evidence that we live in a mature meritocracy. Not saying that I agree with the arguments, but they have been made.

Money is one part of the overall jigsaw puzzle.

Of course it is. However, along with this, high level of education does not necessarily bring about a high level of later life success or social mobility either.

A lack of social mobility, wanting a more meritocratic society, essentially, is why the educational attainment gap between rich and poor is a concern. State education was set up in order address this. Pupil Premium was set up in order to address this. However if that funding is either promoting the conflation of PP qualifying factors with SEN or used to put pressure on parents, who have hugely stressful home lives, to provide unpaid support to schools, themselves, this only perpetuates and causes more disadvantage.

There is still a long way to go.

Are you denying that there are some at a disadvantage who are their own worst enemy and responsible (at least partly) for their own unfortunately circumstances?

What have their children done to deserve their disadvantage? How does keeping families in dire circumstances help?

bad schools don't spend huge amounts of money setting up and maintaining ex-pupil databases in the hope of one day tapping them for cash not because of culture, but because it's not going to be worth it is it? Realistically pupils from private schools are more likely to go on to be adults who can afford to chuck money at their old school.

Schools where a much larger proportion of the population (1/3 nationally) qualify for pupil premium are going to do worse than a pupil population whose parents can afford fees - the OP of this thread shows that in the graph!

Why don't grammars target ex-pupils? Or do they?

schools don't spend huge amounts of money setting up and maintaining ex-pupil databases

Private and grammar schools don't either. They're usually run by retired teaching staff and ex-pupils themselves, so don't actually cost the school anything, in fact, they're barely anything to do with the school at all, except in name. Often they're separately constituted limited companies (often limited by guarantee) and/or registered charities. As I said, my brother's private school "alumni" is still going some 30 years after the school closed!

My son's state grammar school have an "old schoolians" group which is run by it's own committee which includes an ex headmaster, several ex-teachers and several ex-pupils (with a few current parents too) - costs nothing to run but basic admin costs which amount to a few hundred pounds and yet raises huge amounts via fund raising such as annual dinners, auctions for promises, book sales, etc - it's basically equivalent to the "friends of" or "parent teacher association" that many state schools will operate alongside, but rather than concentrating only on current pupils/parents, it brings current and past together. They also have an annual magazine which they produce and circulate to all past and present pupils which is financed by advertising. As well as the fund raising side, it's also proving useful as several ex-teachers and ex-pupils help out with school trips etc as an extra pair of hands.

There's absolutely no reason at all why more schools can't do that kind of thing. Most will have "friends of" or "parent/teacher" associations that are volunteer run, so it's not that much of a leap to start keeping in touch with leavers and encouraging them to stay involved occasionally when the opportunity arises.

user, I've not looked at the national statistics, but I don't think grammars, admit many pupils in receipt of Pupil Premium. Educational disadvantage has usually began at a much earlier in a child's school career. So children who go to grammars probably have parents who are either able to support their child themselves educationally (well educated or lots of natural ability / determination and copious amounts of time) or buy in external educational support (rich). So grammars are arguably, less in need, of additional resources.

"Are you denying that there are some at a disadvantage who are their own worst enemy and responsible (at least partly) for their own unfortunately circumstances? Surely not everyone who is "disadvantaged" is entirely innocent and culpable for their own position?"

Not for a second. But their children are not responsible. Unless you are really going down the deserving and undeserving poor route.......

There's absolutely no reason at all why more schools can't do that kind of thing. Most will have "friends of" or "parent/teacher" associations that are volunteer run, so it's not that much of a leap to start keeping in touch with leavers and encouraging them to stay involved occasionally when the opportunity arises.

Of course schools can do this. However it doesn't address the attainment gap or lack of social mobity. It is the privileged families who have the extra resources to help. If a school admits a large proportion of socioeconomically disadvantaged children the parents, inevitably, will have less resources to drawn upon in order to boost a school's funds.

So grammars are arguably, less in need, of additional resources

But they don't get additional state funding - their budgets are very tight. Do you think it's good for grammars to develop a culture of parents having to supply necessary resources themselves? What about the non-PP grammar pupils whose parents don't have the time/education/money to support them.

What's wrong with getting alumni to donate? (I agree that it takes some resources to target alumni, but for many of the well-known grammars there would presumably be quite a lot of rich alumni who might donate.)

And if ex pupils have somehow been able to do well, despite their school not because of it, they are unlikely to want to put their money into boosting it's funds.

What's wrong with getting alumni to donate? (I agree that it takes some resources to target alumni, but for many of the well-known grammars there would presumably be quite a lot of rich alumni who might donate.)

I never said their was anything wrong with it, user, just that it won't help social mobility (because grammars don't). Educational disadvantage starts well before grammar school age.

The vast majority of state schools aren't grammars! The reason why it might be profitable for a private school to tap past pupils also applies to grammars - high achievers more likely to go on to be high earners.

The national GCSE A*-C pass rate in both English and Maths is 53%. Nationally is it worth the time, effort and organisation to send glossy magazines out to past pupils asking for cash when nearly half of them didn't even pass key GCSEs?

Grammars stand a chance. Most state schools don't.

I (obviously) know that most state schools aren't grammars.

But the forthcoming cuts to state education are going to hit all state schools - those with high achievers and those without. Grammars and other schools with many wealthy alumni (e.g. Oratory, London) should be targeting alumni as well as parents to prepare for the storm ahead....

I totally get that this won't help schools without such alumni but this is not a reason for schools with potential alumni support not to target it. They would in the US.

BTW pretty much nobody sends out glossy magazines asking for support from alumni these days - this is way too expensive even for private schools and top US Ivy League universities. Most requests come electronically via email and social media.

bad said a couple of posts back that her school sends out a magazine!

I think encouraging a culture of getting parents/ex pupils to prop up the state system is problematic in that it will just increase the social divide even further.

I agree that it could increase the social divide.

But in reality over the next 10 years of Tory government cuts to education are likely to be so severe that the divide will in any case widen - between those parents who can help (or afford to pay for help) and those who can't. Alumni support may help the poorer kids who get into these schools, but whose parents can't provide the support they need. (Again this is what happens in the US system, which is an example of a very socially divided educational system.)

Grammars stand a chance. Most state schools don't.

But aren't we constantly bombarded by people saying that outcomes can be just as good in state schools where there isn't a grammar nearby? Seeing as there are so few grammar schools, there must be a great number of comps that have a high proportion of high achieving pupils, who will go onto successful and rewarding careers? Aren't we told that even "failing" comps and those in deprived areas will usually have some high achieving pupils who do well?

It sounds like defeatist excuses to me, and that average comps just can't be bothered to think outside the box to move away from simply putting out the begging bowl for government money whenever they need it. What on earth is the problem in at least trying to look for new ways of raising money?

Where I come from state secondarys do keep in contact with previous pupils, so probably depends on your school really.

bad said a couple of posts back that her school sends out a magazine!

Indeed they do, but as I said, it's prepared and organised by the "old schoolarians" and funded by advertisements so doesn't cost the school anything - in fact it makes a small profit! And is a very important way of both keeping ex pupils "in the loop" about what's happening and also maintaining a link between past pupils, retired staff, and current pupils/staff. Worth it's weight in gold, especially as it costs nothing!

Yes but if there was a government push towards more genuinely comprehensive education, instead of more grammars, the attainment gap would have more of a chance of narrowing.

If there were truly inclusive comprehensive education, students would not have to travel great distances to school because of barriers to their attainment or lack of them. Social cohesion would be greater as children would be educated alongside the children they live amongst. The school could more readily serve the community that is built around it. 'Sink schools' and super selective grammars would not be a phenomenon.

If, even existing funding, was correctly focussed on identifying the real needs of those who are educationally disadvantaged and higher quality correctly targeted intervention (The Pupil Premium Review material I posted earlier on in this thread shows how schools can use their existing expertise to enable this to happen more effectively now) or even better having education that did not rely on so much additional parental resource (financial or otherwise), then the attainment gap would have a better chance of narrowing.

I think better comprehensive education is the solution, to social mobility. Social mobility exists right at the core of being comprehensive as they are not selective and sets/streams are fluid.

If there were truly inclusive comprehensive education, students would not have to travel great distances to school because of barriers to their attainment or lack of them.

So. just to clarify, you want to go back to where there was no choice and you automatically went to your nearest school?

You want to scrap all selection, i.e. no faith schools, no grammars, no schools with specialisms (such as for sports, Maths, languages, science, etc.).

You basically want every comp to be identical in terms of the subjects, extra curricula activities, pastoral care, etc., that they offer?

After all, there can be no other way to offer every child the same opportunity, other than to have a massive network of comps all doing the same thing.

That sounds like a massive U turn after years of the mantra being "choice" where you had the freedom to send your child to a school specialising in Maths if they were gifted in Maths or sports if they were a talented sports-person.

Is that really what you mean?

School specialisms were scrapped years ago and the whole 'maths specialist school' thing was fairly meaningless anyway. Schools weren't allowed to select on maths ability, just a got a bit more money for maths equipment.

I'd scrap all selection in state schools (grammar, faith, sex) without hesitation. An illusion of choice that actually meant less or no choice for lots of parents.