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.

I see your point OP - there should be a better socio economic mix in schools.

However, to create a true socio economic mix I think you would also have to force people with means to educate their children in the state system and outlaw home ed and private schools.

I can't see that happening.

That's open to abuse though surely?

Given the state of some schools and the lengths people go to in order to take their kids to good schools it's surely going to be a far easier option to tell your kid to misbehave on purpose?

I mean non the instances where the families are "under surveillance" from.the school and there are known issues and care plans etc is one thing. But it being common knowledge that if your kid is excluded and you get the pick of schools is open to all sorts of abuse surely?

Like people who go to church just to get into a school then drop it.

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/10656101/Surge-in-admissions-lotteries-threatens-childrens-right-to-place-at-local-school.html

Lottery would be the only way to randomise the intake, but how would that work outside of a city? Would you want to bus children for hours to make up the 15% places you want OP?

Oh, ok niminy. So what are your thoughts on the point the OP made about children on FSMs having priority?

(Unmet) SENs are no respecter of income bracket.

I think you're coming from a very narrow experience of catchment areas though. When we lived in a city the catchments were very mixed for primary and there was a very broad mix. However, at secondary a great many higher-income pupils will be hived off to private ed - which then creates the conditions you're talking about (although I think to a lesser extent).

So in my city, the 'solution' wouldn't be to send FSM children to the better schools, it would be to keep higher income children in all schools (which obviously isn't going to happen).

It is not a few marks it is subtantial marks in grammar schools. PP children leap frog 100s of children who scored higher than PP children. Is this fair?

Also on excluded children: most excluded children shouldn't be parachuted into classes of over 30 kids, they should be given specialist, 1 to 1 help to help them overcome the trauma that they're (usually) acting out in school. And actually, I think some of this should be in residential schools, so they're right away from the circumstances that are hurting them.

But that would cost ££££ so it's never gonna happen...

I cannot stand the term 'low aspirations'. I know lots of poor people who have very high aspirations but that doesn't stop them being poor. Often all it does is cause depression, when the gap between real life circumstances and aspirations widen.

Qualifications and hard work often don't stop people from being poor either.

We have a very unfair system that favours some people and not others. Our education system is part of that system and is very unfair. The OP is right we need to start doing something to address this.

Prioritising school places won't stop people from being poor happybubble.

It wouldn't be any fairer to give some children priority over others just because their problems in life relate to money rather than countless other things, especially when low income families are already given significant financial support through the state systems.

Where is the state support for children who have a sibling or parent with a disability? Where is the state support for children who have a sibling or parent with a long term illness, or who have been bereaved because of the loss of a sibling or parent? Where is the support for the many children from high/middle income families that have an alcoholic parent? Where is the support for the children whose parents have had a long drawn out and messy divorce that has had significant emotional impact on them, or for the children who have had to witness domestic violence?

Why is it that people only ever seem to worry about what state support is available for children from low income families when they are the ones already receiving the most state support?

All children deserve the opportunity to access the very best education and teachers available, whether they are rich, poor, disruptive, very bright, have SEN or are one of the ordinary vast majority.

Raising the standard of ALL schools would be a much better idea, but will that happen? Probably not.

I overheard a conversation once between a couple of well-off parents about their expensively privately-educated teenagers who were about to apply for university places. They said that since they had had paid for the best of education so far, they should be able to pay for the best university places as their children deserved it, and that it was outrageous that the great unwashed could be given places over their own children.

If their marvellous offspring had received the best education money could buy so far, then they ought to be able to get in on merit rather than the size of Daddy's wallet!

The poorest people are taking the least out (wages/benefits), that is why they have the least and are poor. It is just silly to try and argue otherwise.

Wages are not the same as benefits, and it's silly to argue that the people that take the most out are in fact the ones taking the least out. Especially when it's not really relevant, because all children should be given the state support they need, regardless of whether their parents are rich, poor, or somewhere in the middle.

We need to get rid of the great schools, good schools, sink schools pyramid. Get rid of private schools, that would be a good start. Then put the money where it is needed most, to make sure all children get a good education. Things could be a much better than they are.

Taxi - that well-off couple don't sound like very nice people.

How does social mobility in the UK compare with other European countries? Is there any data?

YABU. The families and the children make the school in my experience and not the other way round. Why do so many people despise middle class, law abiding tax payers? Who do they imagine pays for all the stuff they expect to be subsidised?

All I could think when I read this was - yeah right - ha ha ha ha!!

Here's a thought for you - I work full time - my DH works full time - yet those who are not working either by choice or circumstance have all the time in the world to help their DC to improve their education - so in my opinion it should be those who contribute financially to society and work that get the priority places not those who don't work!

my Example - why do those with DHSS stamps get first dibs on pre-school places - to help parents get back into work - to help the disadvantages - load of rubbish - 3 or 4 hours a day isn't going to make a huge difference to someone trying to find work and you'd probably be better off staying on benefits - same argument as above - you're not disadvantaged - you're at home - why do you need to take the morning places - it's not as if you have to rush to get to work!!

I now prepare to be flamed........

I've come to the understanding in life that LIFE IS NOT FAIR!!

And I've just to get on with it as best I can and suck it up!

What is a DHSS stamp? Do I get it on my forehead?

YABVU, those who don't work already have little incentive too so if they got places at top schools there would be even less.

Schools can only do so much, the bulk is down to the parent. That's why there is PP as stats shows those raised on benefits fair less well in life. They have the same teacher as those that do better, the only difference is the parents.

you get it from the job centre to say you are claiming benefits and it goes on the school application form.

Well said Daisy.

Fizzie - so the only measure of contributing to society is financial input?

happy - thats absolutely rubbish. many poorer people claim things such as housing benefit, job seekers allowance, child benefit. Apart from a few years of child benefit - which we no longer get - i've never had any benefits. All i do is pay in, and i'm sure there are many others in my situation.