Labour reviewing school admission criteria

That is exactly what Labour are proposing.

The NHS will be for the low earners, and everyone else will have to pay privately.

Well whose fault is that? If people don't access services that they are entitled to, that's up to them.

So a higher rate of tax payer gets worse services than someone that doesn't pay tax or pays very little tax?!!! Shall we give low earners all the nicer houses and let them jump the NHS queues too while we're at it?

Exactly.

My youngest DD has autism, and I went on so many of the free courses they were offering - how to support communication, how to make communication cards, supporting meltdowns with calm parenting etc, helping with accessing SALT, and ways to support this at home, yet every single course was full of MC parents who were looking for support with willing to act on the advice.

It is the same with Sure Start Centres. They are full of MC parents, there weekly to weight their children, to have support with breastfeeding etc. They are not accessing the parents they were intended for.

So if you’re a high tax payer your bunion gets precedence over a lower tax payer’s broken ankle.

People assume that everyone will magically become middle class by osmosis.

The only thing I think that would be good about this policy is that most people will experience what I've seen at our school - parents who don't work, don't care, abusive to staff, laugh when kids abuse staff...

In other words you would be swapping children with motivated parents out of poorly performing schools and replacing them with children whose parents don’t want them to be there, and if motivated will try and get them moved, and who are not part of the local community. And how does that improve that school?

And shouldn’t those motivated parents be accused of being ‘sharp elbowed’ and selfish too for seeking advantage for their children? Or is it only MC parents who can be accused of that?

Agreed. At my school we offered training and support to families constantly - most had excuses why they couldn't do it despite them not working.

The best thing we could do is tell people the truth - that we all have responsibility for ourselves and our children.

All of my friends help children with times tables, reading, self-,regulation. Even if you aren't educated yourself, there is so much you can do to support your child - even if it's just learning to listen to the word 'no'.

You can't have the people paying for schools through high taxes at the back of the queue!

This. It is a cultural issue and these children are growing up to fit within, and prosper within, their culture. So if you want to change those schools you have to look to that culture. And that is where Labour run into trouble telling benefits dependent communities with multigenerational unemployment, that their culture is wrong and their children should travel miles to a school to have a different culture instilled in them.

How would an LA decide on a deserving and committed family over a ‘couldn’t care less’ one?

It works with grammars (which I’m strongly in favour of) because of the entrance requirements. But I doubt we’ll see any expansion of grammars.

A policy of the sort some seem to be in favour of is blind to family attitudes.

How much more support can we give these families?!?

We are constantly giving money to low income families! We pay for rent for them, we top up their household income, they get FSM, they get PP money, they get free HAF during the summer with a free lunch, they get transport, honestly, the list goes on and on.

Nothing can be done as they do not want help and they cannot access the help.

All this policy will do, is negatively impact the children who are able to learn due to parental support.

Three agreements in a row from me!

It’s for this reason that catchment tinkering is so pointless, and almost certainly will do more harm than good. The sorts of parents you described - and I can well believe there are enough to be a significant problem for schools - are not going to change because their children are sent to a better school than the rules presently allow. They’ll just export their attitudes to the better school.

And the reason I say that is because like some others on here my kids have gone to grammars where they have introduced much lower scores for PP and yet, there is not much demand for it.
I know why. The schools are super intense with a heavily invested parent group and a push from the schools themselves. This is the case in all successful schools, grammars, church, leafy catchment comp. It is a culture and ethos that many people do not want. And you cannot force people into that culture. You can only give them the choice to access it.

“But I don’t see how swapping children around will help with any of this. The families are the source of the chaos.”

I don’t think they will do that though. I think they will simply give some poorer families the choice to access better schools and only the motivated poorer families will sign up to this choice, because they know it will be more effort to fit into such a school. And so the schools will be fine, because it is all about the parenting and the motivation.

Yeah, but you can’t. You won’t. They don’t see it as a problem. They are happy living that way, the people I live around are certainly happier than me, anyway.

Again, I agree. But we need to change the families’ attitudes and conduct, not shuffle children.

What is it you think a dc, who has been instilled with caring about education, can do? What is their proximity doing exactly.

Are you more theoretical on this, as I’m not sure you can know the reality of how hard it is to overturn parental dissuasion on education.

See the pp below from moving her dc to grammar and reactions to that.

What do you want mc / striving dc to do exactly?

And how do you know disruption won’t just hinder them instead.

Because teachers don’t want to work in some schools.

My children’s school have two types of teacher; ones that have worked there for donkeys years and ones that only last a year, some, not even that.

We have a horrendously high number of staff that have been assaulted by parents in the playground (there is a special area, at the end of the school field for pick up and drop off for children who’s parents are no longer allowed on school grounds due to issues), each year, I’ve seen my child’s teacher spat at, screamed at (by the parents), they get absolutely no respect at all.

The ones that have been there forever usually taught the parents themselves, so fair a little better.

Add in the behaviour issues of the children in the classroom, and In all honesty, I’d think “fuck that” and look for a job elsewhere too.

We agree.

But I don’t see how swapping children around will help with any of this. The families are the source of the chaos.

“Why can’t they get teachers into some schools? The school funding is no worse than for other schools. The teachers don’t earn less. What is it then?”

It is the fact that they cannot do their job properly in some deprived schools because all their time is spent on behavioural issues, social issues, additional paperwork etc.
Most teachers just want to, well actually, teach and teach kids who show up fed, having slept enough and with a functioning pencil case (including glue sticks!) and with some basic respect towards others, pupils and staff.
Just like they want kids to show up with the basic in Reception. Turn taking, toileting, age appropriate speech and language, get dressed for PE.
For every stage of education, there is an expected norm. A lot of families appear not able to get their kids to the expected norm standard anymore. To send them in with the right kit etc and a packed lunch etc., to send them to bed on time, ensure a basic amount of homework is done.

Yep. Agree 100%

Why can’t they get teachers into some schools? The school funding is no worse than for other schools. The teachers don’t earn less. What is it then?

I think this is about teacher recruitment and expectations primarily. They cannot recruit teachers in very deprived schools anymore. So the cycle of low expectations continue. The aim is simply to put some kids into schools with a demographic of higher expectations but to keep the threshold of higher expectations high enough for the school to continue to be successful and also recruit teachers.

And why do you think it should fall on other children to give that support?

That’s why fair banding is a good idea.