to think that children from low income families should have access to the best schools

[ReallyTired]

some schools have more than their fair share of erm.. Challenging children. Middle class parents can get their children a better peer group by buying an expensive house, praying or going private. Children from low income families are trapped in poor schools as their parents cannot move as easily.

I think that all state schools should prioritise 15% of places for fsm children so that poor children can have a chance of going to the best comprensive. Before I get jumped on most fsm children are NOT problem children. However they are more likely to educated at poor quality school. Children who get excluded should be given a place at the best school possible even if that means going over 30 in the class.

Children from wealthy families suffer less from attending a weak school. Middle class children can help to raise the aspirations of their classmates.

Perhaps private schools should take a few difficult children as a condition of their charitable status.

You do know the Government bribed grammar schools to reserve around 15% of places for FSM/PP children. It already happens.

The policy was objected to and the Government showed schools how to find a way around the system.

Praying isn't only for the middle classes!

Are there many 'poor quality' schools?
I think you can get good gcses at pretty much any school if a child puts the effort in.

No I don't agree

I would prefer more time and money was spent on getting all state schools up to the same decent standards.

15% is far to high a number, but perhaps 5% of places reserved for children of high academic potential who have been held back by parental and family backgrounds. These children should be admitted to private and selective state schools even if the have failed 11+ or entrance exams. The work they have done in class should be evidence of their academic ability.

If 11+ exams were to be taken , perhaps such pupils who have parents who live in deprived or generational lack of educational achievement backgrounds could be given say a 20 point start!.

How do you propose we discriminate in favour of children who face challenges other than having parents with a low income ReallyTired?

Children who get excluded should be given a place at the best school possible even if that means going over 30 in the class.

So all we have to do is tell our children to refuse to co-operate with teaching staff, swear at them, assault them, break stuff and be generally disruptive until they get excluded and they will get a place at the best school in their area?

Great! That'll work

And what's this about the praying?

Why not concentrate on reforming all schools to the same standards?

What about bursaries,scholarships,11+ ?

What about the fact that not all areas have comprehensives?

The difference comes because of the parenting, and the parents expectations of their children's achievement and more importantly, their behaviour

^^This

Aarrrgh angelos02 you are saying that your parents having more money means you are entitled to better start in life. More money should not mean you are entitled to better things. Thats like saying if your in a hospital at a busy time you should be able to slip the nurse a tenner and get seen first.

Op has not worded this well and made a lot of assumptions but i can sort of see what she might be trying to say.

That's why some LEAs use a ballot system for deciding school places. Eliminates the unfair advantage some have of being able to buy a house in the catchemnt area of a good school.

Have you been at the daily mail for long?

'The difference comes because of the parenting, and the parents expectations of their children's achievement and more importantly, their behaviour'

can you post the research that backs this up?

'The most challenging children are frequently those with unmet additional needs. '

This is a fact.
Children with SEN are more likely to be excluded than children on free school meals.

DD didn't get into the school that some pushy parents define as the best school. The school she is at is seen as the poorer choice.

Do I

a tell her to misbehave so she can be sent to the supposed best school

or

b tell people the truth - that I never applied for her to go to the other school because it's not the right school for her, and the school she is at is the right school for her

c not give a fuck what anyone else thinks and worry about my own child?

No, I can't post research. It's my opinion based on what I see and what I know.

If money was the only problem, then the pupil premium would have sorted it out long ago, along with ofsted, the national curriculum etc.

The only difference between high achieving and low achieving schools once the extra funding has been taken into account is the intake. So it must basically come down to parenting.

I've sat on review panels considering the cases of a number of permanently excluded children. Without exception these children have suffered more trauma in their short lives than many adults will ever go through - including the deaths of parents and siblings, removal from the family home, substance abuse and addiction in the immediate family, child abuse and neglect. It's not simply a matter of naughty children. These young people are acting out the extreme damage that they have sustained.

They deserve the absolute best, because they have received the worst at the hands of those who are supposed to care for them. They deserve all the advantages they have never had. They deserve to be somewhere where they won't be seen as purely a problem to be solved. And, yes, if that means the rest of us have to move up on the bench to make room, well so be it.

YANBU.

frauhelga I'd go with option c! Having worked in schools from different sectors in vastly different positions (pastoral, teaching,mainstream and SEN) the best schools in my opinion are not the ones with the best address, highest cost, smallest class size,wealthier demographic but the ones with exceptional staff. Staff motivation, personality,ability to work as a team and engage/motivate pupils is the key to a good school.

Niminy, children who don't come from low income families often suffer the death of parents or siblings, substance abuse in the immediate family, or from abuse or neglect.

There are countless things that children suffer from, or that mean it's genuinely difficult for very good parents to do a good job that have nothing to do with income.

I agree that children who need it should be given all the support possible, and be given priority for school places in extreme circumstances (as children who have been removed from home already are) but it makes no sense whatsoever to assess a child's need based on their family income.

Using FSM as an indicator makes a mockery of the benefits system if nothing else, and it totally ignores the real and equal needs of children who's parents don't qualify for FSMs.

We are a middle income family, live in a multicultural area, go to a school with higher than average FSM pupils.

I know that in the school my children attend, of all the children (nearly 300) that my DS causes the most difficult behaviour. He isn't violent or disruptive, but his SN make him rigid and anxious. He has a full time TA and spends quite a bit of time out of the classroom.

What should be done with him? We don't have a low income.

Woo woo Owl, you haven't read my post properly. I wasn't talking about FSM but about permanently excluded children.

I did realise that you were taking about permanently excluded children, but I mistakenly assumed that there must be some relevance to FSM as you told the OP that she WNBU based on her post that is about FSMs, and used your experience to agree with her.

Sorry for the mistake.

I was addressing the point in the OP that excluded children should be given priority even if means that class sizes go over 30.