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.

Charlie Stayt of course benefiting himself from a private school education.

Noble, Charlie Stayt is normally inanimate and bland, but I think his true left wing guradianista side shone ever so brightly today. More raspberry ripple than vanilla this morning.

Wycliffe £30,000 per year!

www.wycliffe.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Schedule-of-Fees-Sept-2016-1.pdf

Sally Nugent (other presenter) was at a Upton Hall Grammar School herself.

He was good and managed to prove that in reality she does not give a flying fuck about 'ordinary families' as the majority will not be at a selective school.

I don't understand your point, Cauliflower

Sorry to hear that noble.

Just for once it might be nice for the people who are interviewing the Education Secretary about all the terrible things that will happen to the country if there are more grammar schools were not all either people who had benefited from a grammar school education themselves or whose parents had not shelled out tens of thousands of pounds on their education. That was my point. Wouldn't it be nice if the interviewer had been at a comprehensive school and could embody success following a non-selective state education.

How does that make him wrong to challenge the Education Secretary for banging on about grammar schools while the vast majority of the school system falls apart due to lack of funding?

Wouldn't it be nice if the interviewer had been at a comprehensive school and could embody success following a non-selective state education.

Wouldn't it be nice if the Education Secretary was prepared to admit that as the product of an ordinary working family herself and comprehensive system, she had done well for herself. Instead of the appalling waffle that she came out with.

Still Education seems to be a bit of a graveyard for politicians - it has a habit of ruining their careers - who now remembers John Patten or Ruth Kelly, once rising stars of their parties, who disappeared without trace after a spell at Education?

If you wanted someone from a different background saying the same things as Charlie you could have switched to listen to Angela Rayner on Radio 4.

I think the lady presenter, standing in for Victoria Derbyshire, made it clear to the guests that she attended a comprehensive school.

Was this research initiated before or after the DfE put out strong messages (and therefore potential future funding/career opportunities for associated academics) that they wanted help to identify JAMs for policy purposes?

Tail wagging dog?

Noble - it doesn't make him wrong - I don't believe I said that?

Do you know what seems harder than finding an interviewer who went to a comp? Finding a respected educational expert who is in favour of opening new grammars.

www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/justine-greening-grammar-schools-education-secretary-expert-ordinary-working-families-a7681456.html%3Famp

peregrina

Still Education seems to be a bit of a graveyard for politicians - it has a habit of ruining their careers

Absolutely!! Their hearts must drop as they are told their new role.

I don't think it was being Education Secretary that ruined Michael Gove's career, that was being a back-stabbing twat. And Nicky Morgan was ruined when she a) supported Gove and b) slagged off Theresa May's trousers.

Finding a respected educational expert who is in favour of opening new grammars.

A lot are clearly against, but it would be a bit naive to assume what people are prepared to say in public is what they think in private.

I think the lady presenter why the need for the lady before the presenter - would you have said the gentleman presenter? Can't she just be called a presenter or is presenter supposed to be masculine?

Having read the paper, it looks like they've pulled together an interesting data set which I should imagine will keep a number of researchers busy for quite a long time.

Shame as Noble says that they've been obliged to use it at this point for a patently ridiculous government policy. I have to say that I think the paper has been written quite carefully to emphasise the blatant stupidity of the question they are being asked to address.

I can see why the children whose families earn above the FSM limit are actually doing OK. Some of these people will have professional level jobs and be well educated but have chosen to work for charities or change career so are starting again with a lower salary. Some people decide that one wage is sufficient when grandparents want to help financially. I know one parent who gave up his job to devote his time to being a Chairman of Governors at his son's failing school and try and get his son to Cambridge (did not get a place though). They had sufficient savings to draw down but would have looked poor in any earnings study. I know of several others who look poor but have family wealth that pays for everything. They all have degrees but have chosen a more laid back lifestyle because they can.

I think educational background of the parents is also a very good indicator of educational success of the children. The gifted son/daughter of a person who is truly working class and unskilled is almost unheard of now. Most of these people from yesteryear have beocome qualified and are now middle class with middle class incomes and aspiration to match.

I think categorising those families above FSM but below the median household wage as people who have made a lifestyle choice to earn a pittance is dangerous.

I started a thread in chat about those families who would be classed as 'ordinary working families' and it seemed to be agreed that actually it was a totally shit living situation, better described as 'working poor'. For example, a single parent with a young child only has to have a household income including benefits above £17,000 to be in the 'better off' category rather than 'ordinary working family' category. £17,000 is nothing. It's pretty horrifying, tbh, and it's great that those kids are doing ok at school.

What the graph does seem to highlight is that PP and FSM pupils really do form a different category for some reason, even though household income may be not that different to the working poor and they need significant support.

rather than observing that the kids who are doing best have a home environment that enables it, are less likely to be living with LD/SEN and probably have more spent on tutoring than the PP is per pupil.

Or they are parents who didn't suffer the education system over the last few years and who have the wherewithal to take an interest in their own learning and so on. I went to a very mediocre secondary school but took an interest via reading, watching educational programmes etc etc and my children are the same.

However, I meet other adults who clearly can't be bothered and have low expectations despite having had a high level of education; I was writing a document with a colleague the other day and used the word 'rudimentary' (ironically the phrase was 'rudimentary knowledge') only to be asked what it meant as they had never heard of it. We earn the same low salary but my children are going to achieve more because I give a damn about their education.

So, although the school system may have correctly targeted a sector of the population whose children do less well academically, this sector are still academically achieving worse despite 'targeted help'?

Added to this, being in the targeted PP sector, appears to be a greater determining factor of lesser educational achievement than actually monetary wealth because the educational achievement gap is greater between the targeted PP group than the gap between low income families and wealthier families.

Surely one consideration must be whether, whatever action is being taken to tackle educational low achievement for pupils receiving PP, is somehow detrimental to their educational achievement?

Except that's obviously nonsense because pupil premium was only introduced in April 2011 and any impact is unlikely to have been instant. Schools which have successfully used PP money to narrow the gap are only now being identified and their strategies shared.