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.

I think about a third of pupils nationally register for FSM at some point in their educational career so it's not unusual.

SIMs is the usual pupil database used by schools, so when a teacher takes the register they can press a button and see which kids in the class are FSM/PP.

Your friend can phone the school is she wants more details of what it will involve.

At ds's school 37% are FSM- so no stigma. It's still kept as low key as possible- but the kids really aren't bothered.

Bertrand , I agree with you but my good friend's nephew appears to think it is. I will look up the % . But for some reason he thinks it will mark him out.

OK looked it up - the FSM % is a comfortable bit lower than approx 1/3 ( i.e. 35 ish % ) But things to think of - thanks all. Shall speak to friend. Thank you those who have given advice on here.

In all this, what seems most pertinently apparent, is that schools take funding targeted from one set of vulnerable students (those qualifying for PP) and use this to fund another set of vulnerable students (those with SEN), in the process conflating their needs together.

The above side steps the issue of spending quality time actually engaging in the real nitty gritty of teaching, namely differentiating between children and identifying their real educational need in order to tailor what is taught and how. Stereotypes are thus further perpetuated. PP qualifying factors are conflated with PP. Using PP funding to tackle SEN avoids the need for schools to take responsibility for actually looking at educational need holistically and properly investigate the root causes of poor achievement and what interventions most effectively tackle it, for those qualifying for PP or those with SEN.

As gaps in achievement between the socioeconomic groups remain wide, are widest between the groups which claim for PP and those who narrowly miss qualifying, weight is added to the view that the State education system really does still reinforce the status quo of this country.

If parents are unable to educate their children, at home, themselves and fill the gaps of what is not taught adequately in schools, sometimes personally paying for others to do this, then those children are still at a disadvantage. Additional funding still does not seem to tackle educational gaps as effectively as parents can.

Whilst this situation continues our education will never be truly comorehensive.

So perhaps the additional funding would be better spent by giving it directly to families...

Comprehensive. Typo.

Thank you - very interesting

is that schools take funding targeted from one set of vulnerable students (those qualifying for PP) and use this to fund another set of vulnerable students (those with SEN)

That's a statement that you've not evidenced at all.

You admitted your self this happens, noble. Here:

I agree that sometimes PP money is used to fund SEN interventions for PP pupils, because the intervention would otherwise not happen due to lack of school funding.

I also agree that non-PP students are being piggy-backed onto PP interventions in order to spread the benefits.

I would suggest parents not having the resources to advocate and fill in the gaps regarding what is not taught adequately at school seems to be the factor that most disadvantages children.

Giving additional funding to schools, for a sector of children whose parents have asked for financial help, without removing the need for these parents to provide education at home and advocate for their child within the education system, is not going to solve the educational disadvantage these children suffer.

That's not what I said. You said money is taken from PP students and given to SEN students.

I said if the PP student has SEN then PP money may be used for their SEN.

And piggy-backing another student onto the PP intervention (like the school trip example I gave) is also not taking money from the PP student because the PP student still gets the intervention.

You are suggesting the PP student gets nothing while the SEN student does.

And on here, there is also evidence, from the other side, of conflation between SEN and PP qualifying factors. As parents talk about seeking proper diagnosis for their child's SEN, on the SN boards, and experience being treated as if the SEN results from social disadvantage, first and foremost, before a proper medical diagnosis can even be entertained.

You are suggesting the PP student gets nothing while the SEN student does

This may be the case for PP qualifying student who don't have SEN, if the majority of the PP funding has been spent on SEN interventions. And I was talking about specific interventions and not 'school trips', noble. I have never known of anyone, whose child has SEN but not PP funding, being offered to go on a fully funded trip, funded by PP, because their SEN has qualified for them do so, over students who receive no additional funding.

"if the majority of the PP funding has been spent on SEN interventions."

But schools can't just do what they want with PP money- it's accountable.........

I am questioning how accountable, in real terms, Bertrand.

If the 'benefit', according to noble, of using PP funding is used to tackle (PP qualifying) student's SENs is that 'admin' is avoided,

because the other option moving forward is unlikely to be better targeted money, rather less money with more red-tape and admin attached,

that very removing of that 'admin' means that the mechanism, by which educational needs are actually correctly identified (i.e. admin) is removed.

I know of loads of things that PP money has been spent on that first and foremost benefit PP students but in addition benefit other students. Like hiring a TA to do maths intervention with PP kids, and putting the odd kid who is struggling with maths but not PP into the small groups. Or assigning the TA to work with a class where lots but not all of the students are PP. Students who struggle with maths or need intervention do not necessarily have SEN.

I am questioning how accountable, in real terms

It's on the school website! Anyone can look! Ofsted certainly do.

What I mean by that is that 'admin' is the mechanism for accountability. Any removal of 'admin' is a removal of accountability.

I have looked noble.

I know of loads of things that PP money has been spent on that first and foremost benefit PP students but in addition benefit other students

How does this serve to narrow the educational achievement gap between PP qualifying students and non PP qualifying students, noble?

Yes and you listed things like 'reading intervention' and 'social skills groups' as SEN interventions without considering why they might also be appropriate use of PP money.

The gap will still exist if attainment is merely raised across the sectors and the disadvantage PP qualifying students experienced is not compensated for, in order to equalise their chances of high achievement.

How does this serve to narrow the educational achievement gap between PP qualifying students and non PP qualifying students, noble?

Because the majority of pupils benefiting are PP. In addition it can be beneficial to the PP pupil to have other students in the intervention that they work well with, these pupils are not always PP.