School - BBC 2 - 9 pm

[HollowTalk]

Anyone watching?

Watching now

I think I must have missed a bit at the start - why was all the PP activity focussed on the boys? What about the girls, don't they matter?

Several times people tried to motivate the boys by saying they wouldn't get a 'good job' without GCSEs. I wasn't sure that the boys actually had a frame of reference as to what a 'good job' was as opposed to a 'bad job' or presumably 'no job'.

Wouldn't it be good if there was a part of the curriculum that looked at types of jobs their salaries what that means in terms of household budgets etc. Might make learning seem more worthwhile?

They said that of all the underperforming pupils at the school the PP boys made the least progress of all and I think 14 boys in particular were the worst performing in the school.
They were trying to focus on them to boost grades and pupil progress for ofsted.

Wouldn't it be good if there was a part of the curriculum that looked at types of jobs their salaries what that means in terms of household budgets etc. Might make learning seem more worthwhile?

I imagine they do that in PSHE.

It seemed to me that the majority of PP money was wasted, as those PP boys simply did not want to learn.

Wouldn't this money be better spent on the few PP that want to learn, and on the other kids? You can't make a child learn by throwing extra money at them, if they don't want it.

It also appeared that the school bends over backwards to try and pull these PP boys up, to the detriment of everybody else.

What constitutes disadvantaged children? Is it just people who are adopted etc and people who are entitled to free school meals (which appears to be children whose parents are unemployed)

it's sad when we were at school we had gigs and bigs, girls improving grades & boys improving grades for students on the edge of average as i was, it was beneficial for those borderline kids, i bet thats all but gone now

Some of the names put ja rule did seem like a nice kid who struggled tbf.

and yes its the girls who get pushed to one side!!

What constitutes disadvantaged children? Is it just people who are adopted etc and people who are entitled to free school meals (which appears to be children whose parents are unemployed)

It's (someone might correct me if I'm out on this but generally) children who have been Looked After, those qualifying for means-tested (as opposed to the universal ones for infant kids) free school meals (which is a household income of somewhere just about £16k), or who have qualified for FSM previously... lesser amount of PP for children of armed forces families (doesn't affect many schools - does affect my own kids' school as we've got quite a high military presence because of being close to a base). I could find the exact criteria but they're in the PP report under a pile of paperwork I've got to wade through today.

I'm not sad - I've been sat in governors' meetings lots this month.

I personally get really pissed off at the constant constant focus on lower-achieving boys (I know schools do it because it's a political hot topic and Ofsted are all over it) when my own child's SEN provision is constantly under threat by the class teacher trying to whack these focus boys into things like the fucking five minutes of speech and language intervention time she gets a couple of times a week. Everything is focusing on the gender gap and bringing these boys' attainment up - and those girls struggling with the curriculum seem to get completely fucking lost in the chaos and focus on them. That one really pisses me off. Yes I have a daughter with SN and the focus with her seems to be finding an "excuse" for her attainment to put in all the reports and then leaving her to it and back to the boys! (I have the SENCO's email as one of my regularly used contacts at the moment - SENCO is lovely but the class teacher is obviously feeling the heat to bring these boys up and is shit anyway )

I haven't seen last night's yet (ironically was at a governors' meeting) - got to wade through our own assessment data before I can sit and watch someone else's!

As for girls "dumbing themselves down" - I went to an all-girls' school and I was naturally bright, enjoyed learning things (I went for school governor to fill that need again to be honest) but was bone idle. Then went to a co-ed 6th form college and there was one subject where the class was heavily dominated by a bunch of loud boys who'd all been at school together.

End of the lesson they were announcing scores and winners for some stupid contest they kept running... one of the girls who'd been to school with them was very concerned and advised me they were keeping a tally and betting on how much each girl dared to speak up or answer a question in class and I needed to know this so I didn't come across negatively in their stupid willy waving gambling contest.

I then made sure I topped their chart every single lesson so betting on any outcome was pointless and they couldn't play that stupid game anymore. They had completely socialised the girls who'd been at school with them into subservience and being quiet and letting the "men" speak while the girls had to just sit back, look pretty and simper quietly in the corner. I don't do simpering.

that's shocking hexygona, do the teachers not notice? Or do anything tbh in my memory they didn't. that's it isn't men are allowed from a young age to just dominate the room.

I know careers and budgets are touched on in PHSE - my DD16 has done that. But it's a very brief topic, I'm thinking it should be a much bigger focus area so that the kids understand why their education is are important and how the choices they are making will impact on their whole lives.

I was speaking to one of the women you works for the cleaning agency I use last week. She was remarking on my son's school progress report that is on our fridge and saying she wishes she had tried harder at school. She messed about, found it boring and left with no qualifications. Now she is 26, the reality of having no GCSEs and the impact of that on her job prospects has well and truly sunk in. She said she would love to go back to studying now but can't afford not to work.

She is articulate and bright, makes me sad that she won't get to access further education.

I thought pupil premium was meant to be spent for that pupil - so if it was for a girl that girl should be able to access what the funding is spent on. It felt cynical and ultimately unsuccessful to focus on a narrow group. I actually felt the boys felt a trade offered them the best future and actually for some of them it would /could be - I am not sure why that has to be seen as a bad outcome. I thought the head seemed pretty decent so I hope he gets a chance to make slow progress accross the whole school.

Pupil premium pupils must benefit from the money, but that doesn't mean other pupils can't. So you could lay on provision for a PP pupil, and also open it up to other pupils, as long as you can show a benefit to the PP child.

YY to a trade not being seen as a good option - it's a good outcome for many people.

I do agree that the Mangotsfield head was decent - he's the only one who seemed to have a clue, of all the other heads. And don't get me started on the CEO.

Halfway through on catch up now.

Thoughts so far...

I have no problem naming the problem (this case pp boys) and trying to solve the problem.

I do have a problem with the fact that disadvantaged children do worse but you focus on just fifty percent of them because the girls will behave when the boys don't.

What message does it send if you much about and don't try in lessons and you get taken out for the day?

I really feel.bad for the kids . So many invisible kids. No incentive to try hard. No one trying to push them. All just coasting along while they try and get everyone else up to similar levels.

Totally agree Giles, the girls are just disregarded and ignored.

I also have to say the boys didn't really even see that interested in the trip.

But tbh my assumption on that is because they have been there before. Part of some kind of "intervention" . That everyone means well but it doesn't go anywhere. Nothing happens after. I think the inconsistency /erraticness of it is almost as bad if not worse than the current status

If the girls didn't get the intervention because despite their circumstances they were somehow keeping it together more...Well I think rewarding them for that would have been a good thing to do.

I also liked the head

And to hexagonalbattenburg

When I look up who qualifies for free school meals if the parent works at all then the child doesn't qualify

I think I must have missed a bit at the start - why was all the PP activity focussed on the boys? What about the girls, don't they matter?
Because their data showed a gap between PP and non PP, but PP boys were considerably lower. Which is fairly standard unfortunately. In terms of progress, GCSE outcomes and attendance, our PP boys are way below non PP and PP girls.

At our school, PP money pays for support for everyone (inc pastoral staff). PP kids may be the focus of specific interventions though.

PP isn't about rewarding behaviour. It's about trying to improve the life chances of some of the most disadvantaged students - in most schools the most underperforming group are boys, specifically white working class boys.

PP is an attempt to make up for lack of opportunity and to put them on an equal footing. Sadly, the PP money isn't enough to make the difference and schools have to try and show impact whilst spending little money.

You say that these boys weren't interested in learning but you really need to look at what has happened to bring them to that point and look at what can be done to compensate for it.

It brought it home to me when I was a governor with responsibility for PP while at the same time seeing my students through 6th form and uni applications. I would see students at school whose parents showed little interest in them, either because they didn't care or weren't able to, whose parents didn't know where they were, who they were with, had no idea of their performance at school, didn't take any interest in their education or their prospects. I looked at my own children and how much time it was taking to visit unis, to chat about what they wanted to do, how they could achieve it, what support they needed, going to parents evenings, supporting after school activities, providing resources and opportunities for them. That's what PP is meant to do.

The education system is failing massively. Head teachers are being forced into defensive mode - their jobs are under threat from factors largely outside of their control. OFSTED can act on a whim and plunge a school into special measures by ignoring any positive aspects and concentrating on a tiny number of negatives and so of course HT are going to concentrate on OFSTEDs pet issues. The problem is these change like the weather. We have to have some stability so that schools get the chance to build on good practice. At the moment nothing gets the chance to embed because what was important yesterday has to be ignored tomorrow.

I have been following this series and following this thread. I live in Ireland so don't have a huge amount of knowledge of the UK education system but have an English husband and English nieces and nephews so have a basic understanding.

I have found this series utterly depressing. I have no idea what Ofsted is meant to be achieving? All their inspections seem to lead to is a completely stressed and demoralised teaching staff who appear to be leaving the sector in their droves. It doesn't appear at all constructive just a big stick to beat people with. I may be wrong but it doesn't seem to take any account for the catchment areas some of these schools are catering to. Using the same criteria to measure a school in a well off middle class area to one in a disadvantaged area is like comparing apples and pears. It just seems so unfair.
The pp system also seems bizarre that the fund is linked to the number of disadvantaged kids and measures their individual performance. No matter what measures a school puts in place there are so many external factors in that child's life that will have a much bigger influence on how a child performs so again the odds are stacked against the school and the school is put under the microscope. What about all those other services such as family support, social services, therapeutic supports etc who may be failing that child are they scrutinised as much? In Ireland a school gets what is called DEIS status (Designated disadvantaged) this is based on the deprivation index of the catchment area the school is in so it is not linked to each individual student and whether they are disadvantaged. The school gets extra resources and supports if it is a DEIS school this is for the benefit of all students in that school. There are also specific programmes that they have to run which are evidence based and run in all DEIS schools so it is not left to the whim of each school on how the resources can be used.
Our schools are inspected but those inspection results are not made public. There are no labelling of schools. As a parent the only way you really know how a schools is performing is through word of mouth and also the annual third level tables which show the % of students from each school that went on to third level. Which isn't really a great indicator and also the schools in better off areas have a higher percentage going to third level which isn't any great surprise. On the whole our system isn't perfect but teachers do not appear to be as stressed or overworked as their uk counterparts. Our literacy and numeracy levels are above the UK. From the outside looking in your system just seems broken and failing so many young people.

Watched this episode last night. What seemed odd was that Ja Rules mother was interested and did encourage him. He didn’t seem to fit the ‘deprived’ description. Also why did they stop the early intervention. That seems sensible. Far too late to intervene in year 11.
Other pupils would definitely see that outing as rewarding the ones who mess about and do no work.
Also at the end one of the GCSEs he got was engineering. Never heard of that before.

I don't understand the bit in Episode 6 where the Mentor is saying how sad it is that Ja Rule will just 'settle' for being an electrician - rather than go for A levels.

What's wrong with being an electrician? He'll get paid far more doing that than other jobs. And he's likely to enjoy it isn't he?

I don't know any electricians as friends - but I've always considered an electrician to be a good job. Why do we view these jobs as bottom of the pile in this country? Part of the problem with our education system is that we're pushing ALL kids towards academia as if it's the be all and end all. And it really isn't.