Originally Posted by cosywolf
I would like to see the reasoning behind that, as I'm sure many others would.
Why should a school with loads of low income children get so much more money per child? Surely the (sold off) playing field should be level, with all children given the same opportunities.
Full link (http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/e...-poor-children
Perhaps this explains some of it. Children dont start on a level playing field so dont get the same opportunities. Reading this is does suggest that perhaps more focus/money should go to primary schools so the benefits can be delivered early.
Analysis of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children suggested that the gap in attainment between children from the poorest and richest backgrounds, already large at age five, grew particularly fast during the primary school years. By age eleven, only around three-quarters of children from the poorest fifth of families reached the expected level at Key Stage 2, compared with 97 per cent of children from the richest fifth.
Poorer children who performed well in Key Stage tests at age seven were more likely than better-off children to fall behind by age eleven, and poorer children who performed badly at seven were less likely to improve their ranking compared with children from better-off backgrounds – an important factor behind the widening gap.
Analysis of the Longitudinal Study of Young People in England found that attainment gaps at age eleven were already large and further widening was relatively small in the teen years compared with earlier in childhood. By the time young people take their GCSEs, the gap between rich and poor is very large. For example, only 21 per cent of the poorest fifth (measured by parental socio-economic position (SEP)) managed to gain five good GCSEs (grades A*-C, including English and Maths), compared with 75 per cent of the top quintile.
It becomes harder to reverse patterns of under-achievement by the teenage years but there are some ways that disadvantage and poor school results continue to be linked. While intervening earlier in childhood is likely to be most effective, policies aimed at improving attitudes and behaviour among teenagers could also have some beneficial effects in preventing children from poor backgrounds falling yet further behind during the secondary school years.