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.

In fact it might be a positive move, to abolish primary homework, in terms of children having more time to rest, recuperate and play.

Parental engagement, in this way, can be discouraged. It is not necessarily the parents' lack of individual ability in this area that means they cannot provide help rather it is the fact that there are other pressing priorities for their time.

Parental engagement should never be discouraged! What planet does this idea come from?!

Parents do have a lot of priorities for their time and they may be pressing but to discourage parents who want to spend the time helping with their children's education and who make that a priority over other things should never, ever be discouraged.

For decades research has shown that parents socioeconomic status is the biggest factor in student attainment. No surprises here.

Because clarity you're assuming that teachers are not teaching stuff in the school day and that there is therefore acres of school time in which they could replace navel-gazing with times tables practice.

You cannot stop parents from doing extra work with their kids at home. Showing parents the school methods is usually to stop them confusing the kids with random other methods.

Narrowing the gap here would be better achieved by setting up homework clubs for those that can't do the work at home.

shell, putting too much pressure, on parents who have already an overwhelming amount other priorities demanding their time, to teach at home (as in workshops devoted to current teaching methods), can ostracise them from engaging with the school through the shame and guilt that they do not have enough time and emotional stamina to do this adequately.

Because clarity you're assuming that teachers are not teaching stuff in the school day and that there is therefore acres of school time in which they could replace navel-gazing...

Whilst my child was at primary it was particularly galling when we got reams of maths and English grammar worksheets to compete for homework, which weren't even marked whilst whole afternoons at school, every week, were spent having parties and play activities as class 'rewards'.

You cannot stop parents from doing extra work with their kids at home. Showing parents the school methods is usually to stop them confusing the kids with random other methods.

Badly differentiated homework, which isn't even fully marked, is a hindrance to time which could be spent helping a child more constructively.

Narrowing the gap here would be better achieved by setting up homework clubs for those that can't do the work at home.

So they miss their lunchtime break or the chance of participating in culturally enriching extra curricular activities? Is this not a sure way to ostracise those children involved?

Homework clubs are usually after school.

Also you are confusing anecdote with data again.

In primary homework clubs are often at lunchtime. But even homework clubs after school can affect being able to participate in the enriching extra curricular activities a school might offer, as they are run at the same time.

only if they're every day.

There still is likely to be clashes. And if they are not run everyday, is that enough? Another child might have access to parental support with homework every day.

Is anyone else getting that "Alice through the Looking Glass"feeling?

clarity Proof for your statement above? (As in research data, not anecdote)

(Seeing as you want proof before any extra money is spent on a group of kids who have been shown to under-achieve?)

Education is a long game. A child is in education for 12 years before they do their GCSEs. To 'prove' how well PP money works precisely you would need to follow children through 12 years of schooling. I think in this case, making it accessible to the whole group of children, and then seeing some results after a few years and then the more successful schools sharing strategies is an entirely sensible way to go.

I don't think anyone on this thread is arguing that it wouldn't be good if more money were spent on SEN / high achievers / middle achievers / children with an R in their name. However I think the data is clear in that PP kids as a group clearly under achieve and so that is a good place to start.

Sorry clarity your statement of 09:00:09.

Which statement above, Tween?

X post. Tween

My conclusions arise from, albeit anecdotal, experiences, my discussions over decades with other parents in real life and on here.

I have also read the minutes to many local government school's forum meetings and supporting research papers whereby there appeared to be an overriding assumption that teachers were the experts in providing quality socialisation for a child and the more teacher input had over a child's home life the better and parental engagement was to be actively sought to that purpose. However schools are still failing to address social inequalities associated with PP and the most overriding factor upon a child's future success appears to be PP qualifying family circumstances. Wouldn't it be better to improve those family circumstances at source?

(Seeing as you want proof before any extra money is spent on a group of kids who have been shown to under-achieve?)

No, I want additional needs funding for additional needs to come from an additional needs pot. I do not want PP qualifying circumstances to be equated with SEN.

I think the research into why such a diverse group (of PP qualifying children) under achieve is, inevitably, going to reflect that diversity. So even the after years and years of research ,taken to prove this, you are still left with having to identify individual needs and attach the appropriate resource towards tackling them.

Conflated not equated. Typo.

Is anyone else getting that "Alice through the Looking Glass"feeling?

So that is how an alternative perspective feels to you Bertrand? I thought, perhaps there would be less naivety and more empathy on these boards... Oh well.

And ironically, although Alice's experiences may seem strange and fantastical, one of the major themes of this series of books, is that they result from a repressed part of her own psyche.

Education is a long game. A child is in education for 12 years before they do their GCSEs. To 'prove' how well PP money works precisely you would need to follow children through 12 years of schooling. I think in this case, making it accessible to the whole group of children, and then seeing some results after a few years and then the more successful schools sharing strategies is an entirely sensible way to go.

The results after 6 years is that children in receipt of PP do significantly worse than those narrowly missing qualifying. Even those strategies that work the best, from those targeted at children in receipt of PP, may be less successful than the more ordinary teaching, the children who narrowly missed qualifying for PP, received, as the latter group had higher achievement. There is no way to take the same group children and compare the comparative success of the two different educational experiences. All the group receiving PP have received a different educational experience to those not qualifying.

shell, putting too much pressure, on parents who have already an overwhelming amount other priorities demanding their time, to teach at home (as in workshops devoted to current teaching methods), can ostracise them from engaging with the school through the shame and guilt that they do not have enough time and emotional stamina to do this adequately.

and discouraging parents from being involved can make them feel inadequate and remove what could be useful support for their child. Workshops devoted to current teaching methods can be useful and the same information can be made available to parents who are unable to attend.

shell, not running workshops is not conducive to discouragement a parent from helping their child.

By hyping up the importance of workshops and parents effectively teaching at home, it reinforces the view it is part of a parent's role to teach. Adding to the burden families in receipt of PP, experience. Would not the fact, that it is considered they now need to attend a special class, in order to provide, what is considered normal support, for their child's state education, maybe make them feel a bit inadequate?

Wouldn't it be better to actually combat poverty at source, allowing the families to recover from the trauma and stress, it causes, than add extra burdens to their life, by suggesting they fulfil a role, that they are not necessarily trained to do and certainly not financially recompensed for? Just to take burden away from the paid professionals that are trained and paid to do that role?

Discouraging. Typo.

"So that is how an alternative perspective feels to you Bertrand?"

Happy with an alternative perspective. Struggling with "pupil premium children do less well than non pupil premium children, so obviously the pupil premium funding is causing the problem. Let's take it away" That's Red Queen logic.

I am not advocating reducing funding from this sector of the population, Bertrand.

I am advocating allocating resource to actual needs rather than the perceived needs of pupil's in receipt of PP.

I am advocating actually identifying the real needs of these families and children rather making a rough estimation based on the perceived commonalities, within a diverse group of people, of what their children's educational needs are, whilst ignoring actually combating poverty and tackling the stress and trauma, at source, which would benefit whole families and remove the source of the problem.

I am advocating removing burdens and barriers to success for these families and not increasing them by increasing the pressure they are under from reinforcing feelings of inadequacy by implying they should freely perform the role of a teacher at home (or school in the case of the pressure to volunteer).

I am advocating avoiding the conflation of PP qualifying factors and SEN and allocating sufficient resources to SENs and other additional needs.

I am advocating treating children who qualify for receiving PP as the individuals they are and not holding lower aspirations over them as a result of prejudices about their capacity to learn.