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.

SEN children get extra help based on their educational need. PP is based on different needs but may cross over. Often the lowest performing SEN children are also PP. Surely you don't think SEN is only evident in non PP children? The evidence does show that by and large PP is targeting the right children but it is extremely difficult to look at all family circumstances unless it is brought to the attention of the school. You can only try and meet the needs of the children as they present to you, whether the child is gifted or should be in a special school. In a well run school, there are huge benefits for everyone in higher attainment by PP children. I would have thought that was obvious and frankly many of these children need greater help as you can see from my descriptions above. Fewer higher income families have these barriers to learning. They also have more money to help themselves.

Neither is success of PP children all about the amount of money for schools. How it is spent is vital. Quality First teaching is vital. In fact, that is the most important element and it does not necessarily cost more.

clarity. No school should just have an extra TA for the whole class paid for by PP funding. Many schools are now realising they must target funding (other than the worst ones, sadly) and Ofsted are all over it and look for targeted interventions and Quality First Teaching. The research into effective interventions and poor, not cost effective, interventions are part of the school inspection process and schools are held to account. I think we need to keep going with this policy and ensure all schools use their money to maximum effect.

bojo,

SEN children get extra help based on their educational need. PP is based on different needs but may cross over. Often the lowest performing SEN children are also PP. Surely you don't think SEN is only evident in non PP children?

Of course not, but additional SEN funding should be used to tackle additional needs. This way the actual amount of additional funding needed for actual SENs is not masked by it being conflated with PP.

Conversely you do not think SENs are actually caused by the PP qualifying factors, rather than actual observable physical and psychological developmental differences, do you?

SEN spending is separate and is spent on PP children as well as the PP amount. Or the school funds the SEN funding but it cannot spend PP funding on non PP children.

No. Dyslexia is not caused by PP conditions. Neither is MLD for the most part although being born to an alcoholic or drug dependent mother is a major factor but lack of money does not cause MLD. However PP conditions can hamper speedy progress and certainly provides barriers to learning.

My point is that if any child has additional needs, which could be classed as SEN (whether they receive PP or not) SEN funding should be used to meet those needs. Not doing so (i.e. using PP funding for a PP child's SENs), means that the real amount funding needed for SENs could be masked. If the child in receipt of PP suddenly is no longer eligible for PP but the additional SEN funding not secured for the future this could be problematic. It is much simpler to fund for additional needs through SEN funding in the first place.

Conflating PP qualifying factors with SENs is also pretty divisive. The danger is a parent's economic circumstances are blamed for some pretty life changing and most usually permanent physical and psychological developmental differences. This would certainly add to the stress of a parent losing their job and their child then qualifying for PP.

The thing is SEN is often conflated with PP factors. I read a PP report only the other say where the majority of the PP spending had been used for Interventions tailored to SENs.

Say not day. Typo.

What additional SEN funding are you talking about? The first £6000 of SEN funding per pupil has to come out of the school budget.

Sorry day not say!

I know that noble. But the school sets aside the amount of their budget they are using for SENs every year. The danger is, if PP funding is used for SENs, the school potentially will not set aside enough for SENs, as PP could easily stop when the family circumstances change.

And this 'masking' phenomenon also might deter people for the necessary ECHPs.

Applying for. Typo.

PP could easily stop when the family circumstances change.

Nope. If a family is on FSM then that pupil will receive PP for 6 years from the date of last eligibility for FSM. The date that the PP expires is known well in advance.

It is still problematic though, that SEN funding is not used. It means schools get used to setting aside less for SENs, especially low level SENs.

And it also does not address the problem of conflating SENs with PP qualifying factors.

It is still problematic though, that SEN funding is not used.

The real problem is that SEN funding isn't there. It's not like schools are spending PP money on interventions which help the child which may be needed because of SEN and then spending the SEN money on sweets. It's a choice between that or spending the PP money on cultural visits (or whatever) and the child getting no intervention.

This is because schools have not been setting enough of their budgets aside for SEN though. The need to set a higher amount aside for SENs would be more clearly apparent if PP funding could not be used for SENs, if SEN funding had to be. I would prefer for schools to have higher budgets altogether and set aside a realistic amount for SENs rather than receive PP funding based on parental income.

I think the conflating SENs with PP qualifying factors is very wrong. It is no surprise that just by qualifying for PP children are suddenly much more at a disadvantage, than those who narrowly qualify, since actual SEN (which it seems being in receipt of PP is conflated with) can most severely affect aspirations and expectations over a person's future.

This is because schools have not been setting enough of their budgets aside for SEN though

No it's not, not now anyway. It's because schools don't have enough money for anything. Everything is being cut.

It is not always lack of funding though, noble.

A few years ago now, my DC had one of the old style Statements which was more than adequately funded. The thing was my child's additional funding was not been spent on my child. This became more apparent over the years. This distorts the perception of actual SEN. My child's needs had progressed and the additional funding was not needed for my child. I knew this however it took years for this to come to light officially (because the school was using the funding elsewhere) which meant my child's progress was masked. Eventually though progress was too obvious and the Statement was ceased. From there my child's progress appeared to leap exponentially (although in reality it happened at more steady rate). I dread to think how much progress could have been masked if I had not been so rigorous in scrutinising how much additional help my child had been receiving. The funding became a hindrance to transparency over progress in additional need.

I agree, Draylon. Because surely help for whole families to escape poverty would take away the problems poverty brings with it.

Because schools use a part of their school budget put aside for SEN interventions costing less than £6k for each child, the money could have come for this funding. Or maybe not..as I said, some of the reports I read on PP detailed spending being mainly devoted to SEN interventions.

I have not read any party policies that really address this, Draylon.

No Shit, Sherlock!

noble, thanks so much for posting this. It makes interesting reading.

I only began teaching after PP came in so can't comment on what the situation was like before. What I will say, however, is that 6 years is not very long in terms of significantly improving overall educational achievements of children nationwide. Bear in mind a child is in compulsory education for 12 years. Incremental gains can be made, but significant change takes significant time. Improving educational outcomes and closing gaps is a 10-20 year project. Way beyond the timeframe of a governmental term of office and therefore beyond the imagination of most politicians.

With PP it appears the government decided to earmark money in schools budgets to solve the problem, but with little (or in fact no) idea about what to do with it. Since I began training 5 years ago I have asked "what should I be doing for FSM and PP children?" with alarming frequency. And I have never had a satisfactory response. Fortunately, some good research has been done, but is will take a decade (or more) for the approaches to be adopted by a significant majority of schools over the educational lifetime of a child.