Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
This Rather Beggars Belief
25 Answers
http://
One think I didn't know and cannot get my head round is why there is a pupil premium for educating 'poor' kids. Are they saying that poor kids need more help? It seems to indicate the Education Authority consider poor people thick hence the extra money to educate them which sounds very condescending.
And now because of it free meals could be hit by protest due to sackings.
Sometimes I really do wonder at these Government departments.
One think I didn't know and cannot get my head round is why there is a pupil premium for educating 'poor' kids. Are they saying that poor kids need more help? It seems to indicate the Education Authority consider poor people thick hence the extra money to educate them which sounds very condescending.
And now because of it free meals could be hit by protest due to sackings.
Sometimes I really do wonder at these Government departments.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
>>>One think I didn't know and cannot get my head round is why there is a pupil premium for educating 'poor' kids
Because pupils from low-income families often have no access to the internet, very few books (if any) in their homes, no chance of attending swimming lessons or music lessons outside of school, no participation in activities such as Cubs (because their parents can't afford the uniforms and subscriptions) and very little experience of anything else outside their own home (because their parents can't afford to take them to the seaside or even into their local city centre, for example).
In particular (largely because of a lack of books in the home or Mum not having the bus fares to get the family to the nearest library) children from low-income families are often poor readers and require additional assistance in the classroom.
When I was a student teacher I worked with two 11yo boys from disadvantaged families, to give them a bit more experience of the world beyond home and school. I took them into Sheffield city centre (just 4 miles from their homes) and they exclaimed 'Oh, it's like London!'. They'd been on a school trip to London but, because of their family's poverty, they'd never been to their own city centre, yet alone to a zoo or the seaside (other than with their school). Such children often need extra support if they're not to fail within an education system that assumes that children will learn a great deal from family experiences.
Because pupils from low-income families often have no access to the internet, very few books (if any) in their homes, no chance of attending swimming lessons or music lessons outside of school, no participation in activities such as Cubs (because their parents can't afford the uniforms and subscriptions) and very little experience of anything else outside their own home (because their parents can't afford to take them to the seaside or even into their local city centre, for example).
In particular (largely because of a lack of books in the home or Mum not having the bus fares to get the family to the nearest library) children from low-income families are often poor readers and require additional assistance in the classroom.
When I was a student teacher I worked with two 11yo boys from disadvantaged families, to give them a bit more experience of the world beyond home and school. I took them into Sheffield city centre (just 4 miles from their homes) and they exclaimed 'Oh, it's like London!'. They'd been on a school trip to London but, because of their family's poverty, they'd never been to their own city centre, yet alone to a zoo or the seaside (other than with their school). Such children often need extra support if they're not to fail within an education system that assumes that children will learn a great deal from family experiences.
Children from poorer backgrounds have low expectations, no aspirations, low parental involvement in their education, often have no encouragement to succeed, fewer structured activities outside school such as music lessons and organised sports.
These children sometimes start school without the skills expected of a 4 or 5 year old such as toileting, eating, socialising. Some have never held a pencil, paintbrush or crayon. Some have very poor speech and have no concentration at all.
Some have hopeless parents - drug addicts, alcoholics, incompetent and negligent.
Some children can't speak English when they start school. This is more likely in a 'poor' area than a middle class one mainly because of the cost of housing.
Of course this is a generalisation and not all children and parents from deprived backgrounds are like this and it is also true that some children from better off families have similar problems.
These children sometimes start school without the skills expected of a 4 or 5 year old such as toileting, eating, socialising. Some have never held a pencil, paintbrush or crayon. Some have very poor speech and have no concentration at all.
Some have hopeless parents - drug addicts, alcoholics, incompetent and negligent.
Some children can't speak English when they start school. This is more likely in a 'poor' area than a middle class one mainly because of the cost of housing.
Of course this is a generalisation and not all children and parents from deprived backgrounds are like this and it is also true that some children from better off families have similar problems.
Chris I think that is a noble and idealistic view and will be true in some cases. In general however I think low income families are low income often because they did not get a good education themselves and have little motivation for pushing their children to do better than them. I sincerely doubt that many low income-families do not have access to the internet on their phones for starters nor that they can't afford books, they choose not to afford them.
Over 2100 families with children are living in B&B emergency accommodation. It is doubtful that many of those children have access to the internet or have books of their own and it can take a long time for such a family to get back on their feet.
Poor children don't necessarily live in a council house with a huge tv, games consoles, smartphones and a Staffie.
Poor children don't necessarily live in a council house with a huge tv, games consoles, smartphones and a Staffie.
//no participation in activities such as Cubs (because their parents can't afford the uniforms and subscriptions)//
Nothing left after fags, booze and mobile phones probably.
//It's just a fact that middle class (ie better paid) parents are more involved in their childs education (read with them, help with homework, have higher expectations etc) //
So because some dont bother the rest of us pick up the tab?
//Some children can't speak English when they start school.//
Yes, well that just about says it all. Thank yo Noo labour and the EU then. Dont worry I'll pay.
Nothing left after fags, booze and mobile phones probably.
//It's just a fact that middle class (ie better paid) parents are more involved in their childs education (read with them, help with homework, have higher expectations etc) //
So because some dont bother the rest of us pick up the tab?
//Some children can't speak English when they start school.//
Yes, well that just about says it all. Thank yo Noo labour and the EU then. Dont worry I'll pay.
“But it is feared the new policy will leave parents with less incentive to apply.” [for free school meals]
Er… they will have absolutely no incentive to apply will they because no application will be necessary.
Tony Draper, head of Water Hall Primary School, near Milton Keynes, told Sky News: "There's going to be no incentive for parents to declare their eligibility for free school meals,..”
So speaketh one of the senior managers in the teaching profession. Just why should parents discuss their financial circumstances with the school when there is absolutely no need for them to do so?
Sorry Chris, I don’t usually disagree with you but my experience of “poor” pupils is not quite the same as yours.
“Because pupils from low-income families often have no access to the internet,..”
The “poor” children that I know of have access to everything and are far more privileged than I am in that respect. I know of at least two “poor” families who have a laptop and smart phone each (with the usual access that those devices provide). Their children receive free school meals and no doubt their school receives the premium for their education. (The fact is that three of the five children rarely attend anyway, so the premium is being spent elsewhere).
“…no participation in activities such as Cubs (because their parents can't afford the uniforms and subscriptions)”
A cub uniform costs around £10-£15 (most packs usually require just a jumper and scarf - and of course a woggle(!) - the rest being optional). Weekly subs are no more than a pound. Almost all the people I see roaming around with children have good quality mobile phones on which they spend an inordinate amount of time. The cost of this alone would fund a child’s membership of the cubs. Similarly they manage to buy a lot of their food in McDonalds or Dominos Pizza. A change of diet might give them more spare cash (and less cholesterol). Children from poorer backgrounds don’t join in such activities because it is not “cool” to do so. They’d prefer to roam around High Streets and shopping centres in their spare time.
It really is no use expecting the State education system to provide the support, help guidance and life experiences that parents should provide. Schools are not and never will be substitute parents. Chucking (not inconsiderable) sums of money at the problem will not solve it. Children need parents (preferably two) to raise them and those parents need to be involved in every aspect of their upbringing. Children whose parents fall short of their child raising responsibilities stand a good chance of being disadvantaged for the rest of their lives and no amount of money thrown at the education system will alter that.
But the “pupil premium” will not end when universal free school meals are introduced. They will just find a different way of identifying the “poor” and the money will still continue to be wasted.
Er… they will have absolutely no incentive to apply will they because no application will be necessary.
Tony Draper, head of Water Hall Primary School, near Milton Keynes, told Sky News: "There's going to be no incentive for parents to declare their eligibility for free school meals,..”
So speaketh one of the senior managers in the teaching profession. Just why should parents discuss their financial circumstances with the school when there is absolutely no need for them to do so?
Sorry Chris, I don’t usually disagree with you but my experience of “poor” pupils is not quite the same as yours.
“Because pupils from low-income families often have no access to the internet,..”
The “poor” children that I know of have access to everything and are far more privileged than I am in that respect. I know of at least two “poor” families who have a laptop and smart phone each (with the usual access that those devices provide). Their children receive free school meals and no doubt their school receives the premium for their education. (The fact is that three of the five children rarely attend anyway, so the premium is being spent elsewhere).
“…no participation in activities such as Cubs (because their parents can't afford the uniforms and subscriptions)”
A cub uniform costs around £10-£15 (most packs usually require just a jumper and scarf - and of course a woggle(!) - the rest being optional). Weekly subs are no more than a pound. Almost all the people I see roaming around with children have good quality mobile phones on which they spend an inordinate amount of time. The cost of this alone would fund a child’s membership of the cubs. Similarly they manage to buy a lot of their food in McDonalds or Dominos Pizza. A change of diet might give them more spare cash (and less cholesterol). Children from poorer backgrounds don’t join in such activities because it is not “cool” to do so. They’d prefer to roam around High Streets and shopping centres in their spare time.
It really is no use expecting the State education system to provide the support, help guidance and life experiences that parents should provide. Schools are not and never will be substitute parents. Chucking (not inconsiderable) sums of money at the problem will not solve it. Children need parents (preferably two) to raise them and those parents need to be involved in every aspect of their upbringing. Children whose parents fall short of their child raising responsibilities stand a good chance of being disadvantaged for the rest of their lives and no amount of money thrown at the education system will alter that.
But the “pupil premium” will not end when universal free school meals are introduced. They will just find a different way of identifying the “poor” and the money will still continue to be wasted.
Try reading something other than the Daily Mail please, Youngmafbog!
Yes, there are certainly families where Mum and/or Dad squander all of their income on fags and booze but they're probably in a minority when it comes to families in poverty. It's far more likely that a single mum has got into debt through simply ensuring that her children have some decent shoes to go to school in, and that the subsequent debt repayments are eating into the family income, than it is that money has been squandered.
I've worked with children from loving, caring homes where Mum has told me that she's not eaten for several days in order to feed her kids (and where those kids have each only had a pair of Poundland gloves as their only Christmas present) simply because Mum didn't know where to turn (and took out a loan) when the kids needed clothes to go to school in.
Yes, there are certainly families where Mum and/or Dad squander all of their income on fags and booze but they're probably in a minority when it comes to families in poverty. It's far more likely that a single mum has got into debt through simply ensuring that her children have some decent shoes to go to school in, and that the subsequent debt repayments are eating into the family income, than it is that money has been squandered.
I've worked with children from loving, caring homes where Mum has told me that she's not eaten for several days in order to feed her kids (and where those kids have each only had a pair of Poundland gloves as their only Christmas present) simply because Mum didn't know where to turn (and took out a loan) when the kids needed clothes to go to school in.
Poor children by and large ARE thick, because they have thick parents as highlighted by the posts of Prudie and hc4361.
This has always been the case for the last 60 years or so, the only period of which i have experienced.
Are we saying that after 60 years of the "Welfare State" the poor are poorer and the children of the poor are thicker? If that is the case then what an indictment on centre left wing ideology.
\\\I took them into Sheffield city centre (just 4 miles from their homes) \\\
The above taken from Buenchico's post above:
Are you telling me that you actually took two 11 year olds 4 miles?
Why couldn't they WALK..........we did as kids.
I do not understand for one minute why the poor seem to be poorer as compared to half a century ago, but i can understand why the kids are thicker.
This has always been the case for the last 60 years or so, the only period of which i have experienced.
Are we saying that after 60 years of the "Welfare State" the poor are poorer and the children of the poor are thicker? If that is the case then what an indictment on centre left wing ideology.
\\\I took them into Sheffield city centre (just 4 miles from their homes) \\\
The above taken from Buenchico's post above:
Are you telling me that you actually took two 11 year olds 4 miles?
Why couldn't they WALK..........we did as kids.
I do not understand for one minute why the poor seem to be poorer as compared to half a century ago, but i can understand why the kids are thicker.
>>>A cub uniform costs around £10-£15
I've known families where it's taken several months of saving just a few pence per week (because that's genuinely all that was spare in their budget) to buy a child a calculator from Poundland. For them a '£10-£15' uniform was just as far out of reach as a brand new Lamborghini might be.
I've known families where it's taken several months of saving just a few pence per week (because that's genuinely all that was spare in their budget) to buy a child a calculator from Poundland. For them a '£10-£15' uniform was just as far out of reach as a brand new Lamborghini might be.
If there is a classroom full of children starting school, they all have the same teacher, lessons etc then I cant see why those from a poorer background should struggle compared to the others. Forget after school activities, they are irrelevant, we are just talking here about the basic standard subjects at school. Why should it be and if people keep going on about it enough, then that is what will be accepted as the norm, ie "poor kids are thick".
There has to be some way to measure deprivation and free school meals is just one of them
https:/
https:/
>>>I cant see why those from a poorer background should struggle compared to the others
Because those from affluent homes will have been surrounded by books and probably read to every night by their parents, creating an understanding of what reading is about and giving them a head start in their learning. (My cousin was a fluent reader, able to put inflexions in the correct place while reading out loud, at the age of 2½. He might have been exceptional but most children from 'middle class' homes start school with at least some understanding of reading). Pupil from the poorest of homes might have never even seen a book and thus they have no concept of what printed words are about.
Similarly children who've been on trips out with their parents can relate the stories and pictures in books to their own experiences, whereas children who've never seen a sheep or a cow, and have never been to the seaside, struggle to find meaning within the stories that they're presented with.
Because those from affluent homes will have been surrounded by books and probably read to every night by their parents, creating an understanding of what reading is about and giving them a head start in their learning. (My cousin was a fluent reader, able to put inflexions in the correct place while reading out loud, at the age of 2½. He might have been exceptional but most children from 'middle class' homes start school with at least some understanding of reading). Pupil from the poorest of homes might have never even seen a book and thus they have no concept of what printed words are about.
Similarly children who've been on trips out with their parents can relate the stories and pictures in books to their own experiences, whereas children who've never seen a sheep or a cow, and have never been to the seaside, struggle to find meaning within the stories that they're presented with.
dave50, some children starting school are unable to use a knife and fork; aren't toilet trained; have never sat a table; have never held a pencil or crayon; have very poor communication skills (talking and listening); have no concept of counting or the alphabet; have never held a book.
Children of the same age can vary widely in their skills - it is not unusual for 4 year olds to be able to count and have some reading and writing ability. Many children have been in nursery and playgroups and know how to play and get along with others whilst other children have been quite isolated.
Some children need individual and personal help at school at that costs extra money.
Children of the same age can vary widely in their skills - it is not unusual for 4 year olds to be able to count and have some reading and writing ability. Many children have been in nursery and playgroups and know how to play and get along with others whilst other children have been quite isolated.
Some children need individual and personal help at school at that costs extra money.
This is from a consultation document on school funding
11. The statistics are shocking. In 2009:
o 53%oftheKeyStage2(KS2)pupilsknowntobeeligibleforFSMachievedthe expected level in both English and mathematics compared to 75% for non FSM pupils, a gap of 22% - virtually the same as the previous year.
o AtKS4just27%ofpupilseligibleforFSMachieved5A*-CGCSEsorequivalent, including English and mathematics, compared to 54% for pupils not eligible for FSM.
o 33% of pupils in the 10% most deprived areas achieved 5 or more GCSEs at grades A*- C or equivalent including English and mathematics, compared with 72 percent in the 10% least deprived areas.
o around40%ofpupilseligibleforFSMatKS4werealsoidentifiedwithSpecial Educational Needs.
The full document is here - https:/
11. The statistics are shocking. In 2009:
o 53%oftheKeyStage2(KS2)pupilsknowntobeeligibleforFSMachievedthe expected level in both English and mathematics compared to 75% for non FSM pupils, a gap of 22% - virtually the same as the previous year.
o AtKS4just27%ofpupilseligibleforFSMachieved5A*-CGCSEsorequivalent, including English and mathematics, compared to 54% for pupils not eligible for FSM.
o 33% of pupils in the 10% most deprived areas achieved 5 or more GCSEs at grades A*- C or equivalent including English and mathematics, compared with 72 percent in the 10% least deprived areas.
o around40%ofpupilseligibleforFSMatKS4werealsoidentifiedwithSpecial Educational Needs.
The full document is here - https:/
I`m not sure children from affluent homes are surrounded by books and are read to by their parents every night. Friends of mine led a pretty affluent lifestyle but the husband was too busy spending his money on plasma TVs, BMWs, time shares and expensive clothes and jewellery to give time for his son. The ethic to learn comes from the parents and the only link that I can see between affluent parents and their kids doing well is when some of that money is spent on private education.
"Some children starting school are unable to use a knife and fork; aren't toilet trained; have never sat a table; have never held a pencil or crayon; have very poor communication skills (talking and listening); have no concept of counting or the alphabet; have never held a book".
If that's the case then it's a form of child abuse that needs to be dealt with.
If that's the case then it's a form of child abuse that needs to be dealt with.
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
Crosswords14 mins ago
ChatterBank16 mins ago
Crosswords20 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.