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.

You were arguing so much for the case, against analysis, I thought you were advocating no analysis, at all

Which is weird, because I've talked quite a bit about narrowing the gap, did you think I meant that no one should check if the gap has been narrowed? I've talked about transparency, with school spending being on the website for anyone to look at. I've talked about Ofsted being triggered if results aren't good enough. I've talked about sharing best practice, an evidence-based approach and RCTs.

What I have objected to is when you suggested that data for non-pp students should be 'adjusted' to account for them being involved in some PP intervention, and someone sitting down with a spreadsheet and cross-referencing all the interventions and data to try to decide which interventions were effective and which weren't. Because that's bobbins.

What I have objected to is when you suggested that data for non-pp students should be 'adjusted' to account for them being involved in some PP intervention,

No, I said that an adjustment should be made, so the PP's intervention's success is measured in terms of it benefitting pupils in receipt of PP, and not in terms of it benefitting students not in receipt of PP.

I've talked about transparency, with school spending being on the website for anyone to look at. I've talked about Ofsted being triggered if results aren't good enough. I've talked about sharing best practice, an evidence-based approach and RCTs

But you've seemed somewhat unconcerned over PP funding being used to benefit students, not in the target group. This is what I objected to. By measuring a PP intervention's success, based on it benefitting students, other than the target group, distorts the actual success, regarding its benefit to the target group. This, over time, distorts their needs. (As perceived need bears relation to what is considered successful in meeting needs).

No, I said that an adjustment should be made, so the PP's intervention's success is measured in terms of it benefitting pupils in receipt of PP, and not in terms of it benefitting students not in receipt of PP.

That's my point. You can't measure a particular intervention's success in the way you've described. You can't run a bunch of interventions, sit with a spreadsheet of data, fiddle with the figures and then see what falls out. Even if it wasn't a terrible idea, if you don't know how successful an intervention is, how would you know how much to 'adjust' the figures by to see how successful the intervention was?

Well the Pupil Premium Review Guide and Template does include evaluating different, various, interventions, noble. Who exactly benefitted, comparisons between participating and non participating groups and costings.

But you've seemed somewhat unconcerned over PP funding being used to benefit students, not in the target group

No, I'm somewhat unconcerned over PP funding being used to benefit other students in addition to the target group, so long as the target group is the PP students.

Who exactly benefitted, comparisons between participating and non participating groups and costings.

I don't think they intend for schools to just fish around in subjective data for that.

However, if they're not doing it in an upfront way with clear measurements of objective outcomes, then they're pretty much wasting their time.

That is why I said there should be transparency over the numbers concerned, noble.

There is a problem, implicit, for example, over PP qualifying factors being conflated with SEN. If a school would rather use PP funding to tackle SEN, because the funding is more automatic than actually having to set aside a part of a school's budget for SEN, this erodes the good practice of setting aside a good proportion of the school budget for SEN. Students in receipt of PP, who could benefit from PP, but whose attainment draws less attention, do not reach their full potential.

Tbh I am used to be fobbed off in this way. My DC's individual funding was used to benefit a significant number of other children, for years, in the intervention groups he attended. The argument being the activities worked best with a group. Except the group's needs conflicted with my DC's and my DC suffered rather than benefitted. My DC received funding for full time 1 to 1. It was reported this is what he received. Yet, he was placed in groups of 6 to 8 with his assigned TA or with the whole class. His TA also did PPA cover.

subjective data

How can data be subjective? Surely it's just data?

Sorry, I was just thinking if quantitive data, there. I presume you mean qualitative data.

I was not talking about fishing about in subjective data either. Unless you consider formal teacher assessments largely subjective.

That is why I said there should be transparency over the numbers concerned, noble.

If the gap is narrowed and everyone involved has improved, then that's a win for everyone, because it means that even if non-PP students have improved, then PP students have improved more. If the involvement of non-PP students is to the detriment of the PP students, then the gap won't narrow.

Unless you consider formal teacher assessments largely subjective.

Subjective and biased...

Oh, and 'progress measures' like sublevels are pretty useless.

If the gap is narrowed and everyone involved has improved, then that's a win for everyone, because it means that even if non-PP students have improved, then PP students have improved more. If the involvement of non-PP students is to the detriment of the PP students, then the gap won't narrow.

But the gap might narrow more if the targeting is more wholly focussed on the PP students. In some cases, (especially where costing is significant per pupil), this could mean an extra intervention or support could be given to a pupil in receipt of PP whose attainment did not draw as much attention but nevertheless could be improved.

The PP Review deals with this to some extent, in the information that is examined.

Subjective and biased

Interesting. I'm not sure the teachers who were 'concerned' over my DC's progress in order to write off and get extra funding (through a Statement) for him would agree. Naively, I felt I had to respect their professional opinion and got them the funding. Duh!

Oh, and 'progress measures' like sublevels are pretty useless.

Indeed, how do you think progress should be reported?

If the school is spending a significant amount of PP money on non-PP students then that is an issue.

A TA who is helping a class who are majority PP who occasionally answers questions from non-PP students is not an issue.

If the school purchases a bunch of resources (I dunno, some equipment, software, or subscription to a website) for PP students and when the PP students are not using them, another group of students also uses the equipment/software/website, then that's not an issue.

If you've bought in an expert to run a workshop on exam anxiety for PP students but stick in a non-PP kid or two into the session, I don't think that's an issue either.

Indeed, how do you think progress should be reported?

Well, that's the million dollar question at the moment, isn't it? Or rather a few thousand pounds anyway, I think the government is prepared to stump up to schools that come up with a decent way of replacing levels.

But any method of reporting progress that is expected to look like the graph on the left makes me suspicious, as it should look like the graph on the right.

If the school purchases a bunch of resources (I dunno, some equipment, software, or subscription to a website) for PP students and when the PP students are not using them, another group of students also uses the equipment/software/website, then that's not an issue.

If you've bought in an expert to run a workshop on exam anxiety for PP students but stick in a non-PP kid or two into the session, I don't think that's an issue either.

Fine if this is reported. But there was talk of a quiet 'chill out' room in our Primary for a while, funded by SEN funding. Except it became a meeting room and extra classroom over time.

I'm not sure the teachers who were 'concerned' over my DC's progress in order to write off and get extra funding (through a Statement) for him would agree

It doesn't matter whether they agree or not, the evidence is there.

thewingtoheaven.wordpress.com/2015/10/11/tests-are-inhuman-and-that-is-what-so-good-about-them/

thewingtoheaven.wordpress.com/2015/11/01/why-is-teacher-assessment-biased/

Ha, ha! Regarding squiggly lines, noble. That was one of the things I said regarding my DC's progression being not that concerning. It wasn't. He did great over time. They were amazed. I was amazed they were so amazed.

I wonder whether teachers stress non linear progression when funding is directly linked to prior attainment within Early Years education?

So and I am not expert in any of these stats but I do think that any priviledge takes lots of forms. Nuanced - for want of a better word.

Poor kid, his KS1 SATs were even downgraded by Teacher Assessment. He did really well in the tests so they decided to take 50% of the grade from teacher assessment.

You can see why I associate extra funding with worse treatment. There was a lot of (subjective) teacher assessment in primary, at the time. My child's attainment was effectively managed, IMO, so the funding was retained.

My child did not even do the same reading tests, to ascertain reading level, one year. That was the year he was put in a reading group, supported by his TA, with children who had reading difficulties. He could read, and understood what was read, well, before school entry.

Love your graphs, noble. You should send them to McKinsey/the OECD who are the real architects behind the crazy engineering-based approach to pupil assessment in England.