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.

Love that those on benefits take the least out yes because the IS/JSA, CTC, CB, HB, CTax benefit, free meals, free prescriptions not to mention the cost to the NHS, the years of education are all less than a worker paying tax and perhaps just getting child benefits. What a silly statement.

A child who is permamently excluded from school has been failed. Putting them into the local sink school because there is space is not going to help them or anyone else. Putting bright child in special school is not always a suitable solution either.

I repeat my assertion that children who are excluded should be placed in the best mainstream school in the area IF they are going to be in mainstream. Often difficult behavour is because of unmet needs. An outstanding school should be far better at meeting a child's emotional or unmet special needs than an OFSTED inadequate school. Maybe I should go further and say that any child with complex needs should be placed in a school which is at least good by OFSTED standards.

www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/may/22/social-mobility-data-charts

Social mobilty in the UK is terrible. How can we improve social mobility without making it possible for children from low income families to have access to the best state schools? I feel that having schools for the rich and schools for the poor damages the UK.

That just wouldn't work though.

It's missing the whole point IMO of why some schools are 'bad' schools.

In the majority, I believe that it's down to the parenting. The fact is that typically, parents who are better off/live in better areas tend to support their dc's education more - either because they themselves are better educated, so better able to, and with higher expectations of dc because of their own background/job/wealth etc - or even for those that don't give a shit about their dc, there is likely to be a 'keeping up appearances' aspect to their pov so tutors may be engaged instead.

In disadvantaged areas, with huge unemployment or those with poorly paid jobs - there are more likely to be parents who may be poorly educated themselves, or have lower expectations for their dc. Those that don't give a shit about their dc won't even have the 'keeping up appearances' motivation that those in well-off schools/areas will.

If you introduced 15% of school places to be prioritised for fsm - which may mean that dc don't go to their local school but may need to travel - the parents that will strive for their dc to go to a 'good' school are going to be those that care, have involvement, value education. Ie - those who would have been a benefit to the 'bad' school anyway.

So then the bad schools just get worse.

If children from families claiming benefit get a chance to go to the better schools, maybe they can break their families cycle. Poor (well behaved or bright children) need every opportunity to be given an equal chance to succeed and break the cycle of underachievement and benefit dependency.

I am upset by some of the comments towards people claiming benefits here and I am politically right of centre.

I have also said previously that very bright children from deprived areas with low attaining schools, should have the option of boarding grammar schools.

This is not liked by the same people who say that poor children should have first option for good or the best schools , which does not make sense to me.

The only thing to aim for IMO is for an improvement/base standard for ALL schools.

I tend towards the pov that if we want a truly equal society, the 'best' thing would be for private schools to be banned and for education to become means tested for all dc.

So we ALL pay for our dc's education, based on our household income. Plough more money into education, from parents (those that can afford to pay) pockets, and redistribute that money equally everywhere.

It still wouldn't be an equal playing field and those with money would still have the chance to give their dc additional benefits through extra-curricular stuff...but it would be better than it is now.

Just because someone is on benefits doesn't necessarily mean the child is disadvantaged. my son - at local grammar - had several friends whose parents were on benefits or very low incomes. One had taken redundancy and didn't need to work as had low outgoings and didn't need to, another also has low outgoings and was divorced. middle son had mate whose mum was divorced but didn't want to work as she wanted to hot house her children.

why should kids from these sorts of families be given any form of preferential treatment? they are educated people, just don't want to work and prefer to take benefits that i provide

Those are the minority though dreaming, surely you can see that?

walking - please don't be so patronising. They might be where you live but not here

Yes it would be lovely if every school was at the same standard but teachers and heads are human so it's not possible to be exactly the same. Ofsted grade the schools and those failing get put on notice to improve or close so it's heavily monitored to show progress and the level expected.

It's not the schools we need to look at but the parents. Stop paying child related benefits thus ensuring a far better work ethic across the country. Children then grow up with a decent work ethic knowing that the better they do at school the better job they are likely to get. What does showing them that not working and getting money handed to you teach them? Our teen pregnancy rate would drop once they knew money would not be forthcoming so it wouldn't be an opt out of work choice like it is now.

We need to stop blaming the schools and look at the major influence which will always be the parents. Putting them in the best schools won't change the outcomes as the factors at home would still remain the same.

No - you can contribute by raising your own kids and not expect others to give you preferential treatment.

It's not patronising It's realistic.

So in your area you have lots of highly educated people with dc choosing to claim benefits whilst they have their redundancy money/inheritance/other funds stuffed nicely away in the bank, meaning no financial disadvantage to their dc?

You live in a very rare area if so. And are naiive if you believe that that is generally the case and not the exception. Naiive being the most polite word I can use so as not to be 'patronising'.

"I have also said previously that very bright children from deprived areas with low attaining schools, should have the option of boarding grammar schools. "

Why should a very bright child have to go boarding school when there is an excellent school in easy walking distance.

The attitude that having parents who work hard means that child is more deserving of a good education is odd. School are there to benefit the child not the parents. Having lazy or hard working parents is an accident of birth.

"In disadvantaged areas, with huge unemployment or those with poorly paid jobs - there are more likely to be parents who may be poorly educated themselves, or have lower expectations for their dc. Those that don't give a shit about their dc won't even have the 'keeping up appearances' motivation that those in well-off schools/areas will."

I think the parents do care, but often they are so overwellemed by life. For example I know a mother with five children and her youngest is severely disabled. Other parents lack the literacy skills to help with home work.

However the child often cares about education. As a child gets older it's THEIR moviation which decides whether they do well. It is hard to learn in secondary school when no one else in the class wants to learn.

Stop paying child related benefits thus ensuring a far better work ethic across the country

You can't introduce that, realistically. Some parents have NO work ethic. And no desire to better themselves or their dc. And no higher expectations for life, based on generations of examples their own parents set for them.

What do you want to do with those? Cut them off and let their dc starve? You can't force anyone to have a work ethic, you can only educate in the hope that shit cycles don't keep repeating themselves.

Even the best outstanding schools can fail to meet the needs of children whose needs are very complex, and that's not because of the schools, it's because of outside agencies like CAMHS and what the local authority is willing to offer. If the LA won't offer support to one school in it's jurisdiction, it's unlikely to offer it to another.

ReallyTired, your second post is nothing like your first. Did you want this to be about excluded children or children on FSMs?

All children deserve to have their needs met, by their parents, by social services and by schools. Not just those with one set of challenges that you deem most deserving.

How can we improve social mobility without making it possible for children from low income families to have access to the best state schools?

Maybe by looking at parenting and stability in the home instead of schools?

I feel that having schools for the rich and schools for the poor damages the UK.

We don't have schools for the rich and schools for the poor. We just have schools. The fact that some schools are in areas of high deprivation and some are in affluent areas is not something that can be changed from within schools. We need to look at what's going on around those schools, what the most commonly occurring challenges are for the intake of every school, and then deal with that appropriately.

If we want to improve social mobility, then the focus needs to be on the things that prevent high achievement, not on the things that provide the same opportunity for all children. All children get qualified teachers to teach them pretty much the same thing, it's what happens beyond the school gates and when teenagers are no longer compulsory school age that counts.

Was social mobility better in the past when there was a widely available 11+ and grammar schools?

So school allocation is based on performance of child rather than the current financial situation of the parents - so you could have a very bright child passing the 11+ from a poverty stricken household?

Stop paying child related benefits thus ensuring a far better work ethic across the country

Some parents are disabled and can't work. Why should their children starve. There are plenty of parents who do "have a work ethic", but cannot find employment.

So we ALL pay for our dc's education, based on our household income. Plough more money into education, from parents (those that can afford to pay) pockets, and redistribute that money equally everywhere.

So despite the fact that we already have taxation based on income, you want to start penalising parents who aren't on the breadline for the fact that they made a sensible choice in not having children until they could afford to provide for them, while others get the same, if not better, for free?

In disadvantaged areas, with huge unemployment or those with poorly paid jobs - there are more likely to be parents who may be poorly educated themselves, or have lower expectations for their dc. Those that don't give a shit about their dc won't even have the 'keeping up appearances' motivation that those in well-off schools/areas will

I think the parents do care, but often they are so overwellemed by life. For example I know a mother with five children and her youngest is severely disabled. Other parents lack the literacy skills to help with home work

Just to be clear, i'm not saying that all parents in disadvantaged areas don't give a shit. At all. But there is, usually, a higher percentage of those that don't.

I live in a very disadvantaged area - very poor in general, mainly huge council estates, huge % of fsm and unemployment. It's not a nice area to live at all, and I don't send my dc to the local school, which is failing and has extremely poor results and environment.

If I was a warrior for the cause I would have sent my own dc there, but in honesty my dc are more important to me than proving a point.

I know that not ALL parents in my area are of the don't-give-a-fuck variety. I'm not one. But there are plenty of them here. Much more than in the well-off area where my dcs school is.

So despite the fact that we already have taxation based on income, you want to start penalising parents who aren't on the breadline for the fact that they made a sensible choice in not having children until they could afford to provide for them

Why is paying for your dcs education a 'penalty'?

I pay for my dcs education all the time, in both time and the money I plough into extra curriculars. Based on what we can afford - i'm sure there are a lot of people that spend a lot more than us, and a lot that spend a lot less.

I don't think asking for a contribution that is affordable, for your dcs education is unreasonable at all.

There is no way for state schools to ask about income, outgoings, financial decisions etc. They just aren't allowed to. So whilst Pupil Premium may not be the best way of identifying disadvantaged children, it is the only tool currently available.

Schools don't need to ask about income, outgoings etc to be able to identify which children need more support than average. Teachers tend to know the basics of what's going on in each child's home life through the normal dealings they have with children and their families.

Pupil premium (or FSM entitlement) might be a way of identifying some children that are disadvantaged because of money, but it completely fails to identify plenty of other children that are disadvantaged because of money and it fails to identify children that are disadvantaged for any other reason that could cause a child to achieve less than their potential.

We already have PP and monitoring for children on FSMs, wouldn't it be a good idea to start looking at groups of children that are equally disadvantaged but that are currently ignored instead of focusing yet more attention on the FSMs children?

We already have PP and monitoring for children on FSMs, wouldn't it be a good idea to start looking at groups of children that are equally disadvantaged but that are currently ignored instead of focusing yet more attention on the FSMs children?

I don't think it would be, no.

I think the 'main' focus should still be on money. Money buys you better everything - housing, clothes, food, experiences, opportunities, education

By far the biggest discrepancies relating to the quality of education our children get is still down to cold, hard cash and PP's and the like do not do anywhere near enough to address it yet. I think it should continue to be the main focus somehow - but I don't agree with the op that the problem will be made better by her suggestion.

Being forced to pay for education is a penalty if others get it for free because it's simply not fair.

Education is about children, not parents, and it is a positive thing for a civilised society to provide for all its young citizens.

You'd end up with a situation where one set of parents with 5 dc get free education and because of that can afford extra curricular stuff, and one set of parents with one dc has to pay for education meaning they can't afford extra curricular stuff.

If were going to start charging for things that can reasonably be considered by the majority to be rightly provided by the state, then in think we should be charging for maternity care before we start charging for education.