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.

Just going back to the PP / specific targeting thing , after the two helpful answers from Noble and Bertrand I looked up my friend's nephews school. They lay out very clearly what they have spent their PP money on. Some things would not necessarily only apply to an FSM / PP student but some seem so - so e.g. ( a very small % ) some help with uniform , apart from that also School trips and Homework clubs for those who have inappropriate opportunity for study inc. internet / computer access at home. So yes some of the things look like they could benefit those who do not qualify for FSM etc but they do have seemed to spell out very clearly what they do spend their PP money on. I am sure most people know this. My point is , it is very transparent what they they are spending and where . The trouble is , is it not like so many things? - the admin to apportion per person would cost more than the money itself so these kind of things will always to some extent be a slightly blunt instrument.

Bertrand - re Your Glorious Reign - the Devil is oft in the detail . I joke merely.

Can you name another profession that is directly comparable to educating children? I.e. where the results depend not just on the performance of the professional but also on the actions of children and their parents.

I can think of numerous businesses, trades and professions where a successful outcome is dependent upon the compliance of the customer/client or other third parties.

Take law enforcement, crime clear up rates are dependent upon the police building good community relations so that people with information will be willing to come forward, getting criminals to admit their crimes, etc., and of course preventative action to reduce the number of crimes in the first place. Police forces are pitted against eachother via league tables etc for numbers of crimes and also clear up rates.

Even online ratings for a wide range of businesses & trades. The business owners now have to go above and beyond and nanny their customers so that the customer is happy and leaves good rather than bad reviews. As many business owners will tell you, one of the major issues these days is non-compliant customers, whether it's not paying their bills, changing their needs half way through the job, unrealistic demands, etc. A lot of running a business these days is dealing with non compliant customers who have the ability to damage you via online reviews.

Anyway that was just a thing I have learned but to some extent I think that privilege is somewhat nuanced. So in this instance, whilst on a very low income , the boy in question is well looked after at home. No problem there. The thing the Mum is not confident in is e.g. Parents' Evening. She finds it overwhelming and is not confident to the extent she stopped going. This is where my fried stepped in , because, whilst she also was not educated in the UK , she will go and ask questions and try to understand things. Sometimes I think it a question of confidence for some things ( I am talking here about e.g. choosing GCSE and later A level options) . BTW I am not saying not being educated in the UK is a bad thing - not at all - it is just a thing the Mum was not familiar with and therefore she disengaged owing to lack of confidence.

Please ignore these posts - they are getting to the extent of chatting.

My point is , it is very transparent what they they are spending and where . The trouble is , is it not like so many things? - the admin to apportion per person would cost more than the money itself so these kind of things will always to some extent be a slightly blunt instrument.*

Basilisk, schools routinely collect all the data needed for the closer analysis and evaluation that carrying a Pupil Premium Review would involve. With IT systems, such as they are, cross referencing is not such an onerous task. I am shocked that people, on this thread, have stated analysis, in the way I suggested, would be meaningless and impossible. Well it is not, there are schools that undertake this. IMO this type of evaluation, in teaching is invaluable.

Regarding schools being transparent, they need to be able to evaluate whether the PP funding has been correctly targeted and made a difference to students in receipt of PP's attainment. A guess to identify their needs is not good enough. Simple teacher value judgements on 'what has worked' is not good enough. There needs to be some kind of real, evidence based evaluation, in the short term as well as in the long term in terms of taking on board the research results, which take decades to surface.

Sorry, bold fail there in first paragraph. I was quoting Basilisk.

clarity that pupil premium review document you linked to says itself that trying to establish the effectiveness of individual interventions is difficult.
"While data are collected on attainment, progress, attendance, behaviour and attitudes, the school acknowledges that making causal links between these measures of impact and some interventions is problematic."

I'm also a bit about any school that thinks they can effectively and accurately measure progress of pupils across a year.

I am shocked that people, on this thread, have stated analysis, in the way I suggested, would be meaningless and impossible

You didn't read my Dylan William link did you?

The analysis from the review document is much broader than the forensic analysis you are suggesting is possible.

Yes, but evaluations the Reviews are still seen as valuable, noble. Here:

"The purpose of a pupil premium review is to use an evidence-based approach to assess how much impact a school is making when spending its pupil premium, and how it might increase its effectiveness. When it comes to the pupil premium, all schools should be using proven intervention strategies rather than simply doing more of what they've always done. Trying something different which is known to be effective, rather than staying with well-established approaches that are comfortable, is a key principle in effective pupil premium use."

(from the blog article).

There is obviously, accept the limitations, however still recognise the value in evaluating, as pointed out above.

I'm also a bit  about any school that thinks they can effectively and accurately measure progress of pupils across a year.

Why? Assessments are undertaken, work is marked and assessed. Progress is compared from previous attainment. I think you are getting too bogged down in concern for accuracy. Ultimately exam results are not the full picture either, but people still take exams and require qualifications.

I am getting the impression, correctly or not, that you just don't like accountability and reporting, noble. Correct me if I'm wrong.

That should say 'there is obviously you middle ground'. Typo.

Omit the 'you'. Autocorrect annoyances!

The analysis from the review document is much broader than the forensic analysis you are suggesting is possible.

No, it isn't. My own thoughts were somewhat off the cuff, so perhaps not fully expressed.mI said I thought the Review document's analysis was good. If you agree with that and would encourage a school to do a Review, such as this, we would be in agreement on the matter, noble.

using proven intervention strategies

Exactly. The school is expected to use proven intervention strategies, not try to prove themselves that individual strategies work, which is what you were expecting them to do. The review says that they should use the teaching toolkit (which I linked to upthread when I said that schools weren't starting from scratch) to see the evidence for various strategies and pick out good ones.

I am getting the impression, correctly or not, that you just don't like accountability and reporting, noble. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're wrong. I'm a maths teacher with experience in clinical trials so I know a bit about data analysis. Most people don't, and it is bloody annoying when over and over people misuse data because they don't know what they are doing, or think that they can measure things that they can't.

So, do you think the doing a Pupil Premium Review, as laid out in the document, would be good practice, noble?

Checking whether the gap is being narrowed is of course a good idea, especially when Ofsted will be doing the same. I told you way upthread that this sort of thing is scrutinised and can trigger an Ofsted inspection.

You're wrong. I'm a maths teacher with experience in clinical trials so I know a bit about data analysis. Most people don't, and it is bloody annoying when over and over people misuse data because they don't know what they are doing, or think that they can measure things that they can't.

Annoyance is never a good starting point for effective communication, is it? Just because people lack experience in an area, or don't use the same professional language, does not mean they don't have important points to make. Tbh it is particularly galling when you feel a person is using terminology and technicalities in order to pull the wool over your eyes. There needs to be a sense of scale on 'Can't do,'.

Tbh it is particularly galling when you feel a person is using terminology and technicalities in order to pull the wool over your eyes

Is that what you think I've been doing?

I told you way upthread that this sort of thing is scrutinised and can trigger an Ofsted inspection.

You did, noble. But I would prefer schools to do their own rigourous evaluations, routinely.

Your emoticon does denote great empathy on your part, noble.

But I would prefer schools to do their own rigourous evaluations, routinely.

You think schools just wait till Ofsted rock up and see what they find?

That should say does not! Typo. I type too quickly.

I think,clarity that I have tried to explain stuff that you, but you have not listened. I don't think you read the links I provided for a start.

You think schools just wait till Ofsted rock up and see what they find?

You were beginning to give me that impression, noble. If you'd been a little more agreeable in terms of stressing the importance of evaluation, instead of stressing the meaninglessness of it and being evasive when I asked how you evaluate PP spending, saying that you didn't have to because it was not your 'payscale'.

I did read some of them noble

Tbh, I had heard the type of points you are making before, noble.I knew them. However I think there can be balance between putting too much weight on forensic analysis versus not doing any analysis at all. You were arguing so much for the case, against analysis, I thought you were advocating no analysis, at all, save looking at the results of research that surfaces after decades.