Pupil premium.
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
Associate
My dad is a gardener and his main job isn't that well payed. He does side jobs for people though which he saves to buy nice things e.g. My pc.
My mum can not work because of god knows how many illnesses.
I think this is a great idea because I'm an intelligent kid in a good school but I would like to go on the big school trips which I can not afford. My last big school trip was 3 years ago :/
Soldato
Just a thought on the topic, but imagine:
A poor, disadvantaged child is going to a rubbish state comprehensive somewhere, which receives this extra £430. Now, he applies to the local public school (fee paying), and gets awarded a 100% bursary. That means that he is now having the £15000 (or £5k, or £50k - whatever) worth of bursary money spent on him. Now, the government has decided that £430 is a suitable sum to help provide the extra education required, so in effect the school is spending £15430 on him. Should the new, public school get that £430 to make sure that they aren't put off taking this child because of the extra educational needs this child has, and would not take a better off child in his place (eg if the pupil premium limit, below which pupils need more money is £16k, and the 100% bursary limit below which the school pays for a 100% bursary is £20k (this may or may not be realistic!)).
(lets assume that there are a set number of bursaries to hand out each year).
Should the £430 follow the pupil to the new school? The extra £430 would ensure that taking this charitable action did not disadvantage the schools overall level of education per pupil (imagine this poor child needs stuff explaining to him more times because his parents are less likely to know the answer than his fee-paying classmates, but this extra money could pay for a teacher to stay later one evening a month and do a mini tutorial with him). However, Mr G. Eneral Public might say 'oh those rich toffs can fork out a bit more to pay for poor children to got to their school, bout time we taxed 'em a bit more'.
I'm currently 50% in favour of the premium following the child? Any other points?
Edit: Note: I'm not actually saying that just because the child is poor means they are more expensive to educate - they may well be quicker learning than the average fee-payer, but just running off hte same basis that the pupil premium will run off. (Although btw, my personal experience of people at my school on bursaries is that they are fairly unacademic, and two of them dropped out after GCSE's).
A poor, disadvantaged child is going to a rubbish state comprehensive somewhere, which receives this extra £430. Now, he applies to the local public school (fee paying), and gets awarded a 100% bursary. That means that he is now having the £15000 (or £5k, or £50k - whatever) worth of bursary money spent on him. Now, the government has decided that £430 is a suitable sum to help provide the extra education required, so in effect the school is spending £15430 on him. Should the new, public school get that £430 to make sure that they aren't put off taking this child because of the extra educational needs this child has, and would not take a better off child in his place (eg if the pupil premium limit, below which pupils need more money is £16k, and the 100% bursary limit below which the school pays for a 100% bursary is £20k (this may or may not be realistic!)).
(lets assume that there are a set number of bursaries to hand out each year).
Should the £430 follow the pupil to the new school? The extra £430 would ensure that taking this charitable action did not disadvantage the schools overall level of education per pupil (imagine this poor child needs stuff explaining to him more times because his parents are less likely to know the answer than his fee-paying classmates, but this extra money could pay for a teacher to stay later one evening a month and do a mini tutorial with him). However, Mr G. Eneral Public might say 'oh those rich toffs can fork out a bit more to pay for poor children to got to their school, bout time we taxed 'em a bit more'.
I'm currently 50% in favour of the premium following the child? Any other points?
Edit: Note: I'm not actually saying that just because the child is poor means they are more expensive to educate - they may well be quicker learning than the average fee-payer, but just running off hte same basis that the pupil premium will run off. (Although btw, my personal experience of people at my school on bursaries is that they are fairly unacademic, and two of them dropped out after GCSE's).
I don't think this money will be spent on school trips.
Last edited: