Pupil Premium Funding Targt of Social Class

The pupil I have chosen to study is named B which is a pseudonym for his name. He is a pupil premium student as well as having English as an additional language. I have chosen to look into whether the social economic status of a child impacts the child’s experience of being in school as well as their achievement levels. In particular the assignment focusses on the impact of the pupil premium grant, which was a strategy initially put in place to overcome potential barriers to learning that a child living in poverty may face. When observing the pupil in my case study I have been looking for significant moments which capture his thinking and learning. Thus, I was able to put together observations and use resources from other professionals to develop a rounded, holistic picture of the child (Maynard and Powell, 2014).

The assignment explores how effectively the pupil premium grant is being used in schools and whether on its own it is capable of overcoming barriers to academic achievement. The grant was introduced by the government in 2011 with the ideology that it was an intervention which could overcome social inequalities (DFE, 2015). The grant for primary school pupils can be as high as £1300 per child to support them in school. With this taken into consideration for my case study, it in theory would be the exact support that pupil ‘b’ would require. However, is it being used to support those who need it or is it simply being added to the schools’ budget for all pupils? A pupil from a socio economic deprived area and a low socio-economic background could use this financial assistance to support them with educational support they are restricted to and unable to access due to monetary reasons. This includes support for school trips and after school clubs. Not just study support, but ones which allows access to extracurricular resources such as recorder, ballet and fitness classes. It has been shown from a study which looked at the effect poverty had on young children’s experiences. A recent study explored the effect poverty had on young children’s experience and argued that children from better off families will see extracurricular activities such as music, dance and sports as a normal school experience. However, for children from poorer backgrounds it is seen as an extra, optional activity which is not necessary (Horgan, 2007). It is important that this stigma is removed in order to overcome the strong correlation between economic disadvantage and low educational outcomes which has long been well established (ESRC, 2011). A summary released by Ofsted has stated that some schools are using the additional funding to replace cuts that they have faced in other departments and are therefore choosing to use the funding to benefit the entire school budget (Gov.uk, 2012). However, if used effectively in primary schools the pupil premium grant could be used to help reduce the achievement gap by improving the parents’ relationship and communication with the school, along with using the funds to provide accessibility to these extracurricular activities.

The relationship between the effectiveness of pupil premium or whether its other factors should be examined carefully. For example, whether it’s the beliefs and preconceptions that teachers hold about socially deprived children, subsequently impacting their professional learning and how they respond to these children (Richardson, 1996).

Literature review

Firstly, the assignment explores how effectively primary schools are using the pupil premium grant. There are examples of studies which provide evidence of the grant making huge differences in schools, however, reports from Ofsted show that a significant number of schools are not using the funding effectively. It has been identified that schools are not using the funding on the required pupils and instead are adding it into the overall budget of the school, which would be implied it is not being targeted on those who are disadvantaged and thus should be recipient of the grant (Carpenter et al, 2013). It was also suggested by Carpenter et al (2013) that the identified schools picked out the children based on their ‘educational rather than economic needs’.

The most prevalent use of the Pupil Premium funding reported by the Sutton Trust is that the funding is being used to bring in additions to the teaching staff, most commonly new teaching assistants (NFER, 2013). It has been argued that this is not effective way of using the funding as assistance from teaching assistants is a very inefficient resource in pupil achievement and very costly (Higgins, 2011). Higgins (2011) argues that the addition of teaching assistants has an indirect effect on the learning process and would be more efficient if there was a greater focus on receiving feedback marking and planning. This is belief supported by a report published by Watchdog which concluded that 71 percent of schools use the funding to hire teaching assistants. However, if the teaching assistants could be used for targeted intervention in numeracy and literacy, as well as focusing on individual needs after pupil data has been analysed then the use of teaching assistants may come at a high cost but could offer high quality development to those children who need the intervention.

Perhaps more concerning is that 77 percent of schools are spending the Pupil Premium funding on all pupils, not on the pupils who are eligible of the funding. This puts the schools at risk of ‘diluting’ the benefits the funding could have on Pupil Premium children by spreading the funding across the whole school (National Audit Office, 2015). This implies that some of the disadvantaged pupils may be missing on the full benefit of the extracurricular activities mentioned in the introduction (Abbott, Middlewood and Robinson, 2015). Contradictory to this was evidence from a national survey which showed that all the schools interviewed suggested that some of the funding was used for out of hours ‘curriculum enrichment’ to give the children who needed it a greater opportunity to learn key skills for learning (Carpenter et al, 2013).

Ofsted have however noted that primary schools who have been using the Pupil Premium effectively are schools who are organised and are able to provide evidence to track where the funding has been spent and can evaluate interventions and measures they have put in place. The schools have been able to explain how the funding Is having an impact, with the majority of schools focusing on English and Math as a way of accessing the full curriculum (gov.uk, 2012). An example of this is findings from an executive head teacher who has found school trips have been incredibly successful at providing experiences that pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds may not have received without funding. She was stated as saying that the pupils had a remarkable change in attitude towards their learning after visiting a partnership school in Gambia and Japan. It provided an opportunity for one child who had never been on a bus, one who hadn’t been on a train and seven who hadn’t been on a plane. Following several trips around the school the positive feedback that the funding had was measurable as they found 70% of pupils received at least one grade higher than predicted after the trip (Pamela, 2013). This provides evidence that the Pupil Premium grant can provide aspiration and ambition for disadvantaged pupils who perhaps lack aspiration because of their family background and socio- economic status. This term has become known as a ‘poverty of expectation’ where low income children may be lacking aspiration due to their parent’s ambition or occupation. This lack of aspiration is strongly supported by a correlation between children’s income and poor educational achievement (Hall et al, 2010). However, this correlation between socio economic status and achievement levels is far from concrete and it is therefore essential to overcome the barriers to learning that disadvantaged pupils face (Unseen children: access and achievement 20 years on, 2013). However, this is disagreed with by theorist Stahl as he believed it is not that children from poorer backgrounds lack aspiration, it is that they lack the same level of aspiration as middle-class children (Stahl, 1995). Stahl argues that the aspirations that they have may be to have an ordinary life, rather to have something grand such as a ‘piano’ player. It is more that the culture has changed to fit the middle-class aspirations towards education more, which makes the working class children’s aspirations appear more inferior.

One of the barriers that children from working families may face is what Bourdieu described as having a lack of cultural capital and is something he argued that it is something that only children from middle class families have by having the skills, knowledge and values to get ahead in education. If there were to be more opportunities to provide all children with a cultural capital over a period of time then this could be an influence on children’s success in school. For example, providing trips to the theatre and seaside (Gunn, 2005). This therefore links to the findings from Pamela (2013) who found that introducing pupils to partnership schools abroad was beneficial to the pupil’s attitude to learning and therefore expanded their cultural influences. However, it would appear that offering cultural capital alone is enough to overcome the achievement gap of those with an economic status as it is still argued that “social class remains the strongest predictor of educational achievement in the UK, where the social class gap for educational achievement is one of the most significant in the developed world” (Perry and Francis, 2010). This is concerning as it implies that the large gap in social status can have massive consequences on the children from poorer backgrounds. Regardless of cultural capital children’s levels of success in education are linked with parents’ income and occupation. The disadvantages that their children face can be shown in poorer regions of the country where up to fifty percent of children begin school without the necessary language and communication skills (National equality panel, 2010).

As mentioned above, it is vital that Pupil Premium funding is targeted to those who need it most and not all pupils as one of the reasons that they how lower attainment rates in school is due to their families ability to afford middle class privileges such as ‘books, internet access or private tutoring (DCFS, 2009). This enhances belief that is vital to have a well-structured school policy that entitles children to access this. If schools were able to improve relationships with parents and guardians then they would be able to know what is accessible for their children. This could be done my having enhanced communication between the parent and teacher where the individual needs of the child would be focused upon.

It could be argued that it is not that children from disadvantaged backgrounds try less hard in school, or that the parents have lower aspirations for their children that is hindering their chances of success in education. There is still a huge chance that they will still come from loving and caring families, it is more the resources that they miss out on from not being from an affluent family. They might see their family less due to work hours to afford the necessities, they might have less opportunities to interact socially due to the neighbourhoods they live in or it might be that they are unable to afford the more luxuries such as private tutoring or extracurricular activities. This argument extends to the belief that middle class parents are more likely to have the acquired skills to use all the resources available to them to ensure academic success for their kids (Furlong, 2005). The resources that the parents have available to them are also extended to more social and cultural opportunities, not just financial reasons. The social capital can be measure by the influential contacts that middle class people have available. It is therefore said that they are more likely to know some of the staff working in school along with information on which schools are best (Ball, 2005). Jaeger (2017) supported this view by stating that findings from a Danish study found that cultural capital led to teachers having a pre-bias of the children’s academic ability, often overestimating it. They also found in the study that cultural capital had a direct correlation to academic success within middle class children. Case study Observations are important for this type of case study as they are a very effective way of studying children. They provide adults with a lens through which to study the child’s world and understand the true impact of what barriers they face (Langston, 2011). This is supported by the research which shows many ideas that were based purely on observations have gone on to be supported by developmental theory (Pound, 2011). If researchers are able to follow the cycle of starting an observation, analysing their observations and then finally planning the next steps in order to be able to help the child, a simple observation could reduce barriers that the child faces. For example, in this instance B’s social class disadvantage. When observing the pupil in my case study I have been looking for significant moments which capture his thinking and learning. Putting together the observations and using resources from other professionals develops a rounded, thumbnail sketch of the child (Maynard and Powell, 2014).

The child chosen for this case study is often very disruptive in class which is especially prevalent in particular lessons, most notably English, P.E and play times. He was chosen for this case study due to showing behaviour that literature says is expectant of a child from a low income background, however, interestingly sometimes shows glimpses of being close to turning around his attitude towards education. His behaviour ranges from: shouting out, hiding under tables, refusal to complete work and intrusion of other children’s personal space. His behaviour in writing tasks could be argued that it is due to the lack of social and communication skills that he may have started school and as reported by the National Equality Panel (2010) could prove to hinder a child’s chances of success in education. B’s struggle with the communication and comprehension of the English language could be key as to why his behaviour is worse in these subjects. The start of the year he was struggling with reading, spelling and writing and this gave concern with regards to whether he was being given any support with this at home. This concern was enhanced after his mother attended parents evening and stated that she found it hard to find time to read with B as well as not having time to make sure he does his homework due to work. With the mum stating that she doesn’t have time to spend with B at home, his father was also banned from the school premises for one year due to threatening behaviour towards staff members. His mum had asked if we could only tell her about any behaviour issues. This observation made the case study all the more important as it was clear that B many difficulties at home. With one of the factors potentially being their socio-economic status which consequently leaves the child’s mum working long hours and having a father who isn’t supportive of B’s school experience.

Most interestingly, B’s behaviour as of recent has been contradictory to this behaviour and has been showing glimpses of wanting to please the teachers and be praised. In the morning lessons, he is keen to engage in the lesson and engage by answering questions and helping others on his table. This is consistently followed by disruptive behaviour in the afternoons. He responds well to praise and is keen to show work to teachers to encourage behaviour. After sitting with B for several lunch meals, despite being eligible for the hot lunches from school he brings in a pack lunch everyday which usually consists of an energy drink along with sweets. We believe after talking to the leadership team that this could also be a strong indicator that the imbalance in his diet could be the cause of his lapse in behaviour in the afternoon. This is concerning since the national survey commissioned by the food agency standards released figures to show that low income households more commonly are deficient in fruit and vegetables as well as key nutrients and vitamins such as iron. Instead this is replaced by foods high in sugar and saturated fats (Food Standards Agency, 2013). I believe that in order to reduce the chances of this happening to B it should be a priority of the school to improve the knowledge of healthy eating which would in turn raise awareness of the issue and give more ideas to families. The school however recently started as a sugar smart school which entails that every school event will be sugar free. They provide taster snacks and ideas on how to make this every day for the children.

Another telling moment observing B was on two school trips. One was to the Old Royal Naval College in Greenwich and the other was a Unicef trip to the cinema. His behaviour on the museum trip to help with history was particularly good as was his shown by his attitude to learning on the return of the trip. As mentioned above, he typically misbehaves or refuses to work during writing tasks, yet upon his return from the trip when faced with writing a report on his trip to the museum his effort was fantastic. His willingness to write about what he experienced goes to show that expanding to a wider curriculum to offer certain trips can help the child to gain cultural capital can have a huge impact. Survey data has supported this importance by concluding that more young children from low income families feel socially excluded when they miss school trips, than when children from richer families miss a school trip. This is mostly because they will have further opportunities to socialise or already have a rich enough social life (Farthing, 2014).

The situation around B’s behaviour gets complexed when it is constantly noticed as being unusual during play and lunch times. He often refuses to go outside stating that he has a ‘stomach ache’, which mum believes is because he’s being bullied in the playground. However, this is contrary to staff members in the playground who report that he is often the starter of incidents. It appears that he struggles with social interaction with other children at times and will often get upset with them when he is playing. For example, when playing football or lining up to go to lunch he will frequently push other children out of the way or be very hands on with them. This is supported by journal findings which found a link between levels of social class and child behaviour in year one classes. It concluded that social class was indeed a significant indicator towards the behaviour of how a child interacts in school (Bor, 1997). Most recently, just before the Christmas break B was going through a referral from the schools SENCO and frequently had two practioners to observe his behaviour from his work to play time. I spoke to the practioners after the observations and they informed me that they found B was ‘off task’ and lacking concentration for seventy percent of the activity. They also gave tips that B needed to be praised for his effort in order to get him to complete more work, rather than reminding him that he Is behind on work or telling him “he’ll have to finish it at lunch time” as this is more likely to provoke defiance. Interestingly they said the main focus should now be how the teachers interact with B. This links to the theory of Burn (2016) as it is vital that teachers aren’t practicing with and beliefs or preconceptions that they may hold about socially deprived children and social class in general. This shouldn’t affect their professional learning and how they respond to children from certain backgrounds. For example, how a teacher might negatively encourage B to hurry up with his lack of work which may be producing the negative responses. If teachers had more of an understanding of how disadvantaged children learnt best, then teachers could enable these children to be more involved in decisions about their own learning (Flutter and Ruddock, 2004). From my observations if given the opportunity, B works a lot harder when he gets to help his peers and the teacher. He relishes being given the opportunity to show other children how to work out the answer and this is only reinforcing his own knowledge whilst showing a passion to make his own decisions about learning. The practioners supported this as they said when B is forced to do a task he is more likely to show defiance and therefore refuse to do the work. It could be argued that the teacher influence as a factor could have a greater impact on children’s achievement levels over the premium grant.

Conclusion

It is most concerning that there are findings from studies and literature showing that the pupil premium funding is not solely being used for the targeted pupils that are in deserving of the funding, due to being from a low-income background. If schools already have effective strategies in place to raise attainment for disadvantaged pupils then I believe that this would be okay to add in to the general budget, however, as discovered by Ofsted (2013a) many schools are not meeting the need to close the attainment gap. Many schools were unable to answer where the Pupil Premium funding was being used or which children were being targeted as a result of the extra funding. Some schools are also unable show how effective the intervention is that has been funded due to a lack of data tracking. This increases the risk of diluting the effects of the funding (National Audit Office, 2015). Schools should be able to make the funding effective if that are able to ensure that the disadvantaged pupils are receiving the full benefits of intervention. Their results need to be competently tracked to ensure they are identifying the needs and gaps in the targeted children’s education. If their gaps in education are identified early then specific intervention can be arranged along with targeted teaching focusing on maths, reading and writing. Despite the limitations towards the effectiveness of the Pupil Premium being explored rigorously, it can be used as a tool to bridge the gap caused by cultural capital. If being used to give children opportunities to experience activities beyond their financial home capabilities then I believe this can make a real difference towards their attitude to work. For example, whilst being an observing B on a school trip to the Old Royal Naval College in Greenwich I was able to see a real difference in the attitude towards learning that B displayed. It was also surprising that on several trips many stated that they had never been on a bus, nor a train despite living in London. This goes to show how much these opportunities can broaden the children’s educational experience as well as giving them more social opportunities.

Overall, I think it is only correct that Ofsted report that the pupil premium is being used ineffectively if schools are showing a failure to reduce the gap between rich and poor children. Therefore, after completing this case study I believe it will have several implications for my teaching. Firstly, after researching reports and attending professional development meetings In school I understand one of the most important strategies to raising pupil’s attainment rate is through precise and accurate data tracking. I believe it’s necessary to be integrated into all teaching practice and is something I will promote heavily when monitoring progress of pupil premium students. This will ensure it is being put into the areas they need and from there on provide them with the support and resources they need to access the higher levels. Secondly, the case study gives me the contextualised understanding of the needs of those from disadvantaged backgrounds, therefore reducing any unconscious stereotypes or assumptions I may have previously held. It will allow my teaching practice to be constantly open minded, given targeted teaching to suit individual needs of the children. Finally, to conclude, I believe that some, but not all schools are failing to adequately meet the individual needs of disadvantaged children through the pupil grant. However, the reports and findings are out there to enable high quality staff training and development that will give teachers greater resources and knowledge to support the pupil premium children.