free school meals and admissions

[TheFlumpFlan]

Just saw this in the news, and idea that those on fsm will jump to the front of school admissions queues as lac do now. The idea is that it cancels out the problem of tiny wealth catchments with poorer families priced out of the best schools. Personally my bet is that the root reason is the fear that with free schools meals for all coming in the fear is that many families who are entitled will no register for fsm, and as schools receive pupil premium funding for each child on fsm this could hugely impact on school budgets in many areas.

I see the obvious bonus of reducing the achievement gap potentially, but I'm thinking about pitfalls. What are your thoughts? Will it create schools of extremes? Is it a perverse disincentive for families who are struggling? I'm not sure it's the best measure, the bar for fsm is so low it won't catch most it would be benefit, at least in London. Is it so obvious it'll lead to identification and resentment? Would working tax credits, or housing benefit or something else meet needs better? Lottery admissions?

I don't have an answer, it's just pipped my interest. (If you're wondering mine aren't entitled, older ones were)

It would end up doing more damage to the children whose parents are unengaged and unmotivated by creating an even bigger divide.

There are plenty of parents who are doing very well by their children's education who are already entitled to FSMs and this would do nothing to help those children whose parents just want their dc to go the most convenient school regardless of whether it's any good or not.

Exactly.The myth that nobody on fsm cares about their kids education or facilitates them to get on is as bad as the myth that everybody over fsm is rolling in it and can afford hours of tuition and prep schools.

nenny don't forget- the child gets free bus pass, but the parents do not... and how many could send a 4yo off on the bus by themselves? Schools don't allow children to arrive unaccompanied below Y5 these days!

I have only seen priority given to FSM for grammar school admission. I think it's right to do this, but I've no idea how it works in practice as presumably they still have to achieve above the pass rate (we only have super-selectives in our area, so passing isn;t good enough, you have to be in the top 750 to get a place. I think they're going to reserve 30 places at each grammar for pupil premium pupils getting over pass mark, then allocate the rest according to score.

Surely children at the bottom end of the socio-economic scale deserve a hand-up somewhere along the line? They're very unlikely to have been tutored to pass in any case- it costs a fortune.

But many children won't be tutored or go to prep schools.

What about the kids just over fsm?Going by the argument that the poorer you are the less well you'll do at 11+(which I don't agree with). The ones just above the cut off who will lose out will be the poorer kids not on fsm so they're just shuffling places about.

I think any fsm kid who passes the 11+ will get priority?They'd obviously need to be able to pass the 11+ or it would be pointless going.Given that 11+ material presumes kids read a lot and are at least level 5 or 6 at maths I'm not sure how much this will help.

I think there are other ways to make the system fairer which would be better.

The best way to make it fair is for a lottery system for primary school places, then those reliant on the state for housing will not be penalised when it comes to 'choice' of schooling.

People on very low incomes do not in the main have any choice re housing. I know people just above FSM levels that moved out of social housing as soon as they had steady incomes, though of course many may not be able to do that now house prices and rents are so high in most areas.
They moved precisely because of the school choices available to them.

It's crazy. I think it's an example of really simplistic thinking, where people think of only the first, most direct effect of something, and none of the secondary effects. So, simplistically, some DC on FSM would enter sought-after schools where, at the moment, they don't meet the admission criteria because catchments are expensive and their families don't control where they live (not that many of us do).

But it doesn't consider: hugely incentivising families to meet the criteria for FSM however possible. Possibilities include: not taking any opportunities that might come up to increase income, shuffling finances around to show an (artificial) really low income, arranging to have an actually low income in that particular year (still less expensive than private school after all), etc etc. How can people who get so far in politics and policy still not think of the incentives and indirect effects of things? I'm sure they can do it when it comes to their own careers.

We earn a little bit too much to qualify for FSM and the DC's go to a school that isn't our catchment school but it is our nearest. I'm not sure how this will affect us. There is a lot of children who are entitled to FSM who go to the school but the other schools nearby are more popular so maybe they will all get into the popular schools and there will be plenty of space at DS1 and DS2's school for DS3, DS4 and DS5.