School trips

Aka I agree such funds should be ring fenced. I agree bags that a tennis court might be valuable but the point is that the pupil premium is supposed to be used to raise the attainment of the specific pupils who attract it. While it can be used for larger projects schools should be able to demonstrate how it will benefit those particular pupils, not every pupil in the school.

Penstemmon a good point is always worth repeating I wonder how the school justified that one as well, but it was a while ago and I think (hope) things may be tightened up now the pupil premium is about to be increased so much.

tanith I think it is quite naughty of schools not to be more open with parents about the pupil premium and wish they would quietly offer to pay at least a proportion of trips for children like your DGC. Parents should not have to feel they are going 'cap in hand' for something which is earmarked for their child. I have had the same experience when asking for payments for looked after children, with the result that payment has to be made from the looked after team budget and the school hangs on to that part of the pupil premium. It all comes out of the public purse and the school really has no right to be so proprietorial about that part of the budget.

Pupil premium is a significant chunk of money. But there are many ways it can be spent. For instance money was taken away from schools that was meant to fund university visits for those who might not think university was for them (it was called Aim Higher)

Just found this and it does say the PPG can be spent on tennis courts! However the school still has to show that 'PPG children' are making good progress and attaining at good levels. I suppose if they are te money is a bonus!

Terms on which PPG is allocated to schools
8. The grant may be spent by maintained schools for the purposes of the
school; that is to say for the educational benefit of pupils registered at that
school, or for the benefit of pupils registered at other maintained schools; and on community facilities, for example services whose provision furthers any charitable purpose for the benefit of pupils at the school or their families, or people who live or work in the locality in which the school is situated.
9. The grant does not have to be completely spent by schools in the
financial year beginning 1 April 2013; some or all of it may be carried forward to future financial years.

I find that very worrying Penstemmon. It suggests to me that vulnerable children are nothing more than cash cows, who represent a nice little earner for the school as a whole. It's even worse than I thought. Don't they deserve some direct benefit from the money allocated in their name?

I do think schools could tell parents that it is OK to sometimes not contribute to trips then at least they wouldn't feel so guilty/embarrassed if they really couldn't afford it. Of course there will always be those that take advantage.

OfSted are very hot on how the PP is spent and want to know how this benefits the relevant children. There have to be figures and evidence that it is being spent appropriately. Examples might be the employment of a TA to support small group learning, or payment for musical instrument lessons etc. And indeed payment for trips.

Trouble is nightowl there is a lot of talk about letting head teachers and governing bodies make their own decisions over local priorities. And how would you actually check what they had spent it on? Most schools probably spend it on additional staff to help with reading, mentoring etc

I work with 7 primary schools as a LA partner(formerly called advisor/inspector!) and all of them use the money to buy in additional support, special resources, pay for attendance at clubs & trips, buy uniform and school photos if family cannot afford to. Part of my job is to ask heads what they have done with the money, every school is supposed to put it on their website what they spent money on and what the impact was..so google your local schools and have a look! OFSTED ask schools to account for how the money has impacted on progress and development for the PPG children.

I only see this from the outside, as a social worker advocating for looked after children. I have felt very concerned by some of my own experiences, but now I'm even more confused by some of these posts - do schools have to justify where the money has been spent or not? And how much spin can be put on it? I am bewildered.

tanith, schools that write the letters I spoke about are telling the parents that they don't have to pay if they can't afford it.

That's what calling it a voluntary contribution means.