Strange school letter

bb999

make_me_wise wrote: »

The goverment does give this allowance to schools for each child registered with them for free school meals. The school where I work sent out the same letter to the parents of all the kids attending with us. We have few who take them up as we are based in an affluent area, but every little helps, both those families who need this resource and the school.

That's my point, why should a school in an affluent area receive less money? Do the kids in these schools not deserve as good an education?

I don't blame the school trying to get any money they can, but I blame the government for allowing such a biased system.

Badger_Lady

I'm confused about the premium being for educational purposes... I mean, how much is a school dinner these days? Must be about £2.70-ish? So £2.70 for a week, 36 weeks in the school year = £486.

Surely the £488 is to pay for the free meals??

POPPYOSCAR

elvis86 wrote: »

...and very few people would opt for their tax money to go to defence, or to "unsavoury" services like drug and alcohol rehabilitation, sex offender rehabilitation etc. And yet many of these are vitally important services that do benefit the taxpayer.

Whilst I agree that taxpayers should have more of a say, this simplistic method wouldn't work.

I did say in my post that certain things would have to remain a constant, so these things would still be covered.

How do you suggest tax payers have more of a say then?

POPPYOSCAR

Badger_Lady wrote: »

I'm confused about the premium being for educational purposes... I mean, how much is a school dinner these days? Must be about £2.70-ish? So £2.70 for a week, 36 weeks in the school year = £486.

Surely the £488 is to pay for the free meals??

Have you read the link above in post 50?

The money is not to cover the meals, it is a way of supporting those schools with pupils who come from 'disadvantaged' backgrounds and the free meals is just a way of identifying those pupils.

msb5262

bb999 wrote: »

I have no issue with anyone who is entitled to fsm getting them.

What I do object to is the fact that because a school has a high number of pupils entitled to fsm then it is funded more than a school in a different area.

For example, a primary school with 200 pupils and a very low number of fsm gets virtually no extra funding.
A similar sized school but with 50% fsm will get almost £50,000 more. This is not money to pay for the meals, it is extra money.

This means that school 2 can afford lots more books, computers, school trips or whatever the school decides. Where is the fairness in that? It is effectively punishing pupils who go to school 1.

If a school has 50% of pupils entitled to free school meals, those children will be coming to school from a very different place...
endless research shows that many children from economically disadvantaged/deprived backgrounds have huge amounts to catch up even when they enter the school nursery setting at age 3.

Ideally schools with a high proportion of children entitled to free school meals use the extra funding to provide more staff (putting children into smaller groups), extra training (providing specialist teaching e.g. one to one work on speech therapy targets is provided at my school) and improving the building (e.g. creating space for group work, meetings with other professionals etc.).

Entitlement to free school meals is simply used as an easy and convenient way to measure levels of hardship and possible deprivation.

In the example you gave, the system wouldn't punish the pupils at school 1 - rather, it would be providing school 2 with the means to bring its pupils up to the educational levels of pupils at school 1...not quite a punishment, I'd say.

It's just an attempt to level the playing field a bit.

MsB

poet123

There is a move to change the way the FSM data is used, as some do not see it as a reliable poverty or deprivation measure, but whether that will come about is uncertain.

make_me_wise

bb999 wrote: »

That's my point, why should a school in an affluent area receive less money? Do the kids in these schools not deserve as good an education?

I don't blame the school trying to get any money they can, but I blame the government for allowing such a biased system.

I do agree with you in a way. There is another school about 10 miles away at the other end of the spectrum, with a huge uptake of fsm. So they recieve a massive amount of this goverment funding.

In the big scheme of things it is swings and roundabouts though. We get far more help from parents coming in to read with kids or assist in classrooms, when they can. We also find that when we run school fairs, sell raffle tickets, send out forms for sponsor money in order to raise funds we get very strong support.

We also dont seem to spend a huge amount of time having the awkward job of chasing parents up for payments towards school trips etc.

msb5262

make_me_wise wrote: »

In the big scheme of things it is swings and roundabouts though. We get far more help from parents coming in to read with kids or assist in classrooms, when they can. We also find that when we run school fairs, sell raffle tickets, send out forms for sponsor money in order to raise funds we get very strong support.

We also dont seem to spend a huge amount of time having the awkward job of chasing parents up for payments towards school trips etc.

This is so true - my own children went to the village school where 1 child (1% of the pupils) was entitled to free school meals, so the school didn't receive any of this extra funding...on the other hand, the PTA was able to raise vast amounts of money at the drop of a hat because parents were quite wealthy and many were also leading leisured lives.

So things like huge donations to sponsor the sports team kit from local companies (i.e. parents!) were easily forthcoming, along with lots of volunteers to hear readers etc... and most children came from homes where they would be supported with homework, spellings, times tables as well as coming to school at age 4 able to speak, count, name colours, use a pencil etc etc so catching up wasn't an issue.

As you say, swings and roundabouts.

MsB

clearingout

bb999 wrote: »

That's my point, why should a school in an affluent area receive less money? Do the kids in these schools not deserve as good an education?

I don't blame the school trying to get any money they can, but I blame the government for allowing such a biased system.

You are missing the point about poverty and how it affects a child's outcomes in life. Children from poorer backgrounds don't do as well in school. There are many reasons for this including low attainment in their parents (therefore not necessarily a lack of will in supporting their children to achieve but not really understanding how or even being able to help - you can't help a child to read if you can't read yourself), a greater likelihood of problems at home (being a carer, for example), parents who can't see the point as they didn't do well at school, parents who's own parents didn't support them academically so there is no role model to go with, not having the computer access to do homework etc. etc.etc. etc. Extra money could help fund an additional teacher, a couple of teaching assistants, more software etc. so that these children get the support they deserve. Would you rather the children in the affluent area, with parents who read to them every night, can afford to pay for extra tutition when a child falls behind etc. etc. get the extra money?

bb999

clearingout wrote: »

You are missing the point about poverty and how it affects a child's outcomes in life. Children from poorer backgrounds don't do as well in school. There are many reasons for this including low attainment in their parents (therefore not necessarily a lack of will in supporting their children to achieve but not really understanding how or even being able to help - you can't help a child to read if you can't read yourself), a greater likelihood of problems at home (being a carer, for example), parents who can't see the point as they didn't do well at school, parents who's own parents didn't support them academically so there is no role model to go with, not having the computer access to do homework etc. etc.etc. etc. Extra money could help fund an additional teacher, a couple of teaching assistants, more software etc. so that these children get the support they deserve. Would you rather the children in the affluent area, with parents who read to them every night, can afford to pay for extra tutition when a child falls behind etc. etc. get the extra money?

No, you're missing the point.

All children should be treated the same, not penalised because they don't get free school meals.

Is it only the children in 'poor' areas who need computers, books, playground equipment, etc?

As for paying for tutors for their children, I wish I could afford it but unfortunately I cannot.