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.

Well, noble, by the same reasoning, this particular research tells us very little, apart from identifying those who are likely to do less well academically.

Any cultural differences between those identified as being qualified for PP and those just short of qualifying is only supposition. Yet the gap between them is the most significant. The only real known difference is how being in receipt of PP involves having access to differing treatment at school. Hence I thought it worthy of consideration. (And 6 years is majority of time spent at secondary)

this particular research tells us very little

It was only ever intended to boost support for grammar schools, that is the entire reason for its existence.

6 years is no time at all, turning around the huge educational disadvantage suffered by PP students won't simply be fixed by extra cash in secondary school, especially in a time of catastrophic budget cuts. It will take time to identify the most effective approaches.

6 years is significant, though, as it tracks a whole generation of children, through the majority f their secondary school years.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in Comprehensive education. However I think it needs to be more comprehensive and genuinely serve communities better. That is, without singling whole sectors of the community out, based on the parent's monetary wealth, especially when monetary wealth is shown to be less f a determine factor over educational achievement then being in receipt of PP.

'of a determining factor..' Typo.

Yes but when pupil premium was introduced, do you think it came with any expert advice on how to effectively spend it?

Teachers get told stuff like 'mark pupil premium kids' books first' by SLT to show that they're doing something, without any evidence that it actually makes a difference (and isn't actually a bad thing to be doing in the first place).

We're only now starting to get evidence of what is working so that those ideas can be spread to other schools.

Exactly why I question the effectiveness of singling out a sector of pupils in this way, noble

Clearly they have identified something, a group of pupils who perform particularly badly, even when compared to families who may be on as low an income as them.

It is certainly worth investigation into why that group underperforms so dismally and attempting to address the issues.

But it is not acceptable, noble, to treat the PP sector of children, like an ill thought out educational experiment. Now, it has been so bad, we have a set of circumstances whereby, just by being in receipt of PP, a child is statistically likely to do significantly worse than those children who onl just miss qualifying for PP.

just by being in receipt of PP, a child is statistically likely to do significantly worse

Er, correlation does not equal causation. Those children were doing significantly worse before the introduction of PP, they haven't only just started doing worse since it was introduced.

No, correlation is not causation. So why has the situation of living in a low income family being linked to low educational achievement led to singling this sector of children out for differing treatment?

Dear god is someone actually arguing against pupil premium?

Correlation does not equal causation, but where correlation can be put together with a reasonable argument to support causation, then it can be accepted that one thing is causing the other.

I think it's fairly logical that the sorts of families circumstances which may lead to a pupil being on FSM, being on FSM in the recent past, or being looked after may also lead to educational underachievement.

"There needs no ghost, my lord, come from the grave to tell us this."

noble, I am against blanket approaches in education (such as PP). A more individualised, actual needs based approach would serve every child. If a child has additional needs this should be identified using evidence from prior attainment rather than assumptions based on parental income.

Correlation does not equal causation, but where correlation can be put together with a reasonable argument to support causation, then it can be accepted that one thing is causing the other

This statement could be used in support of an argument against PP as much as it can be used in support of an argument for PP.

The PP children are not all in low income families. Some are service families (pilots, Majors, etc) and some are looked after children and adopted children who may actually be in fairly well to do households. It is the circumstances of these children, not just their family income. In this group there can be substantial numbers of SEN children too. This is definitely the case where I am a Governor.

The Sutton Trust has published what forms of intervention works best. I think about 18 months ago. There is a lot of research out there but some interventions need further work. Schools now have PP Governors and dedicated PP Leaders in school who, by now, should be up to speed with the best interventions for their children. Clearly some PP children don't need much but others need a great deal. The interventions should be targeted and not a scatter gun approach. You wouldn't have the same approach for all SEN children, so you don't for PP. Many schools find that getting good progress from the lowest performing PP children a major struggle due to significant barriers to learning and these are not financial in many cases.

I did not say in my earlier post that all families just above PP had chosen not so well paid jobs but were well qualified. I said it could account for some of the families. As could part time work. It is by no means black and white about what people earn and what background they have and their aspirations for their children. I think the research tends to reflect that this group of people do have aspiration for their children and can provide an environment for their children to flourish although they are not, on the face of it, well off.

This statement could be used in support of an argument against PP as much as it can be used in support of an argument for PP.

No it can't. There isn't any logical argument which says allocating these pupils extra cash is what has caused their underachievement, especially as the underachievement came first.

An individualised needs-based approach to allocating extra funds would be way too expensive. PP is a blunt instrument and no-doubt some funding goes to pupils who don't need it, but clearly as a group, there is a need for extra consideration.

Schools prioritise PP spending and some pupils don't get as much as some of the others. It has to be needs based. In our school we spend a lot of time assessing need. Why would you have attendance programmes for children who had 100% attendance? Some PP children have poor attendance but others do not. Why would you have extra literacy lessons for children who didn't need it. The funding trigger might be crude but the delivery of a suitable programme at school should be specifically for the child. Of course in many schools quite a few children have the same needs.

noble your own post, regarding use of PP funds, overtly suggested merely being in receipt of the interventions funded by PP could be detrimental. Here:

Yes but when pupil premium was introduced, do you think it came with any expert advice on how to effectively spend it?

Teachers get told stuff like 'mark pupil premium kids' books first' by SLT to show that they're doing something, without any evidence that it actually makes a difference (and isn't actually a bad thing to be doing in the first place).

The figures in the research, you referred to in your initial OP, would support this.

The interventions should be targeted and not a scatter gun approach. You wouldn't have the same approach for all SEN children, so you don't for PP. Many schools find that getting good progress from the lowest performing PP children a major struggle due to significant barriers to learning and these are not financial in many cases.

bojorojo, so you would agree interventions need to be done based on individual needs?

It is by no means black and white about what people earn and what background they have and their aspirations for their children. I think the research tends to reflect that this group of people do have aspiration for their children and can provide an environment for their children to flourish although they are not, on the face of it, well off.

And that singling out children for a particular educational approach based on income does not reflect the complexity of why children in receipt of PP statistically are likely to do less well educationally?

clarity teachers being told to mark Pupil Premium books first isn't the same as teachers marking Pupil Premium books first, for a start. If that's your evidence base for 'Pupil Premium harms pupil outcomes' then you're off to a poor start.

PP isn't based on income. PP pupils aren't all treated the same. Really not sure what your point is except you don't know what you're talking about.

noble no need to be rude.

I would suggest the consideration of whether the interventions being accessed by pupils in receipt of PP, are actually effective or at worst actually detrimental, is simply logical in light of this research. In fact this needs to be done and has actually been done in order to ascertain the varying success of different types of intervention.

What I think might be offending you is the suggestion of the possibility teachers could be doing anything to detrimentally affect the achievement of a whole sector of children singled out for differing educational treatment. It is obviously less offensive to certain educational professionals to examine the backgrounds of the children for an explanation of why they do less well in school, when offered a differing educational experience, instead. However to be scientific both must be examined.

How different are the backgrounds of children in receipt of PP to those who don't quite make the threshold?

How effective have those interventions on the whole been at closing the educational achievement gap?

Do you actually not agree with a needs based approach?

PP interventions should be based on need and many schools go to great lengths to find out what these needs are. These may be financial (cannot afford school trips) or they might be barriers to learning such as extremely low self-confidence. There are many children who are emotionally damaged and other PP children who have a variety of SEN. They may have similar needs but they may also have very specific ones due to their background.

PP children are not exclusively singled out on economic background - as I explained earlier. The approaches used to assist PP children are now incredibly diverse. Perhaps, clarity, you should read the detailed PP reports that schools are now obliged to put on their web sites. A good school will have a huge variety of interventions for their PP children and it is all costed and evaluated. It is inevitable that many of the PP children are the most difficult to ensure they make good progress. Not all, but very many. It is not just a lack of money that contributes to this. It is frequently chaotic lives, lack of role models, violence, drugs, parent in prison, low ability, too many schools, too many parents/boyfriends, exclusions, unsettled home background, court cases, eviction from housing, generations of unemployment, being young carers, being in care, and I could go on. It is not just the children of FSM families where parents are very low earners.

I think the reference to marking books by an SLT that didn't know the time of day years ago is less than helpful. A school cannot even think that is a suitable intervention in their dreams now!

I found that the consultation report pretty much tallies with my experiences in education. Arguing about new grammars is not the right thing at the present time. I would prefer that a consultation was held about the whole education system. From early years through to 16-19 colleges. I trully feel that additional funding should be pushed towards the 2 to 7 year olds bracket paid for by increased taxes if necessary.

clarity. Schools spend a huge amount of time assessing these children to see if the interventions have been positive. It is very important that we do and it is expected of us. The assessments are detailed and accurate. We amend what interventions are offered based on success or otherwise. I don't think you have any idea how much effort goes into this. I do not believe for one second that schools do anything detrimental to PP children because they don't treat them as one mass of children and give them an identical diet. You are advised to know the barriers to learning for the PP children. It is wise to know the barriers to learning for other children as well by the way. It is just more likely that PP children will have greater problems!

bojo, children may not be exclusively singled out on economic background but a significant proportion of the qualifying factors for PP allocation are based on income. Whereas the correlation between additional need and income is not overt, the correlation between low educational achievement and being in receipt of PP is.

Personally I just think you can bypass the broad PP qualifiers and go straight to basing additional funding on actual demonstrated additional needs, which can occur across any income sector. The requirement to demonstrate actual additional needs would mean the interventions would actually be tailored to meet actual additional needs of actual children rather than the perceived needs of a certain sector of the population.

bojo
The fact that many schools have not targeted PP funding directly to those children in receipt of PP allocation, instead using it to support extra reading interventions for any child, to fund an extra TA time for the whole class, for example, could suggest that the interventions are not actually tackling exactly what it is that is a barrier to learning for children who are receipt of PP. (Value for money is the argument) For this to occur the PP has to be directly targeted. So it is no surprise this sector of children still are not achieving as well. For any needs to be met within a sector, funding actually needs to be targeted towards that sector's actual needs.

Yes, I have read the reports over how PP has been spent, over the years. I have also read comments on here from various educational professionals as to how their schools have targeted PP funding, or not, very specifically, as the case may be.