Can school provide clubs/extra help Just for certain children ?

rachbc

yes they can and IMO should. It really annoys me if like at our school the PP is use to subsidise whole school activities. The money is provided to support kids from disadvantaged backgrounds and should be used as such

Savvy_Sue

And thinking about it, when these clubs are set up, they probably won't advertise them as only for those on FSM, if they have any sense they'll start several at the same time and invite some children to one, and some to another. I know that the boys' school used to offer some activities to the Gifted and Talented cohort, in a similar way.

alwaysskint96

rachbc wrote: »

yes they can and IMO should. It really annoys me if like at our school the PP is use to subsidise whole school activities. The money is provided to support kids from disadvantaged backgrounds and should be used as such

But why are those on FSM any more disadvantaged than those earning just about the limit

jopsey

Right that makes sense Savvy, I just had visions or like another poster said "a poor kid's club"

WestonDave

There is a fair degree of statistical correlation between those on FSM and those doing badly in school, hence the premium is not particularly related to the poor family finances but because targetting extra spending on those pupils is the best way to bring the lowest attainment up.

Unfortunately not all schools use sense! Some will undoubtedly (hopefully only a few) end up advertising clubs as being only for those on FSM.

Valli

alwaysskint96 wrote: »

But why are those on FSM any more disadvantaged than those earning just about the limit

It's not necessarily that they are disadvantaged; the set-up is that this is how schools are compared with each other. Schools are compared, on the league tables with 'like' schools - and this is measured by counting how many FSM children there are in the schools. This is also why schools are very keen that all eligible pupils take up FSM.

It is, IMO, a crude way of attempting to compare schools.

securityguy

Valli wrote: »

I
It is, IMO, a crude way of attempting to compare schools.

There is a correlation between parental income and educational outcomes of their children. Not a perfect correlation, but a strong correlation. There will be exceptions in both direction, there is a lot of noise in the signal and a lot of confounders. Anecdotes abound about poor families whose son went to Oxford and rich families whose child ended up in Oxford Gaol (yes, I know it's now a hotel). But they do not suddenly mean that a school in Kingston upon Thames does not have it easier than in a school in East Jaywick.

It is hard to deny that educational outcomes on deprived estates are worse than those in the affluent suburbs. FSM is not a good measure of deprivation. But it's the only number that the school has to measure it with, short of asking to see parents' bank statements or fill out a questionnaire about their work and education. I guess you could do something today (ie, not ten years ago) by using Mosaic codes for the individual postcodes of each pupil, but it would be very labour intensive, ambiguous for children who live with separated parents, and probably have just as many problems. FSM is easy: the school knows the number immediately. FSM is probably no worse than the alternatives.

valk_scot

Our school does it by setting up clubs where if your child is not eligible for a free place, you can pay to have a place. Free kids get priority if places are limited but as I understand it by having more kids in the clubs with some extra money paid in from the parents, they can provide a wider range of opportunities overall. We don't qualify so I've always had to pay for DD but there have been some great activities available. And it doesn't take money out the general school budget that way.

However I do see that this disadvantages the kids who don't get FSMs but whose parents are on a low income and can't afford to fork out extra for these clubs. I don't know what to suggest there. A sliding scale of payment perhaps? But that smacks of means testing and parents might not want to be telling the school their financial position.

Valli

securityguy wrote: »

There is a correlation between parental income and educational outcomes of their children. Not a perfect correlation, but a strong correlation. There will be exceptions in both direction, there is a lot of noise in the signal and a lot of confounders. Anecdotes abound about poor families whose son went to Oxford and rich families whose child ended up in Oxford Gaol (yes, I know it's now a hotel). But they do not suddenly mean that a school in Kingston upon Thames does not have it easier than in a school in East Jaywick.

It is hard to deny that educational outcomes on deprived estates are worse than those in the affluent suburbs. FSM is not a good measure of deprivation. But it's the only number that the school has to measure it with, short of asking to see parents' bank statements or fill out a questionnaire about their work and education. I guess you could do something today (ie, not ten years ago) by using Mosaic codes for the individual postcodes of each pupil, but it would be very labour intensive, ambiguous for children who live with separated parents, and probably have just as many problems. FSM is easy: the school knows the number immediately. FSM is probably no worse than the alternatives.

I know that, hence my assertion that this is a crude method. It uses one criterion only based on the family's entitlement to FSM.
Profiling by market research companies (all that A, B, C1, C2, and C3 stuff) is finer than this - and they're only interested in selling to people and gathering opinion.
Surely the education of children and targeting appropriate support is more important!

A better indicator would be the level to which parents of children were educated because those who have parents who went on to higher education are more likely to encourage their children to do likewise.

Or at least pick more than one criterion!

TeamLowe

The pupil premium grant isn't just given for FSM, it's also for children in the care of the local authority, although maybe the school in question has none of them/wants to protect their privacy. Possibly also English as a second language? My knowledge is from clerking public meetings so a little hazy

I'm pretty sure the ppg may actually cover 'ever been on free school meals in the last 6 years' so acknowledges families may be on the cusp.

Schools are coming under more scrutiny to show how the ppg is used for each child. Whilst in its first year they may have said 'we put it towards a TA for withdrawal work' it'd now be more like 'we got £200 for little jonny and here's how we spent it directly on him'
So after school clubs sound like an easy if a bit ham fisted way of doing it