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.

There are outstanding schools in deprived areas.

"Sink schools are not created by inadequate teachers, they are created when enough parents who don't support education send their children into one place which then doesn't recieve the support to effectively deal with the challenges they have to face."

Exactly and it is selection by postcode which concentrates parents in a particular part of town. Parents with more money or those who are about education move to catchment of the best school. The difference between the sink school and the better school gets wider and wider.

Whether sink schools are created by parents or teachers is irrelevent as its the children who are forced to attend them who suffer. It is a complete accident of birth whether a child ends up at a wealthy comprehensive or a sink school.

I get what you're saying there, but it's the way that that argument seems to completely absolve parents of any responsibility that gets me.

Children are not IMO, accidents of birth. They are created by adults.

I have a child with ASD and challenging Behaviour. He is a common all garden 'difficult child'

I don't want him in a school that OFSTED say is good or outstanding... I want him in a school that is best placed to meet his needs. If that is the 'local sink school' then so be it...

My current search for a secondary has not involved reading an OFSTED report but it has been a process of understanding what he needs and which school is best placed in our community to meet that need. I couldn't even tell you the OFSTED rating of the school I have chosen.

But then he was FAILED (schools admission not my opinion) by an OFSTED rated 'Good' school.

Furthermore, he now qualifies for FSM - I am NOT a failing parent and I have plenty of skills and I am NOT uneducated. In fact I was a professional and I am currently doing a MSc.

You are making assumptions about FSM that the data does not actually tell you, there is a lot of evidence that FSM is not indicative child poverty as it is reliant upon financial information. Poverty, the sort that really imparts upon a child's development and their education is thought to be not about money and things but about lack of opportunity to build positive relationships and resilience. The classic child of a millionaire who learns that money does not buy you everything.

What you are suggesting is a dangerous social experiment not social mobility.

Hello,

Are the majority of posters in Scotland? The educational attainment gap has been in the Scottish news today. Of course it's now gone party political. Usual.

I'll say this, most of the high schools in Glasgow are poor performing (imo, compared to South Lan, East Ren Etc). There is one high school in Glasgow where 0% of pupils got any Highers in 2012. The SNP could have sorted that, they won't, they'd rather blame "Westminster". I really hate how there's no Sure Start, no Pupil Premium but plenty of indignant politicians in Scotland.

To all the teachers in the thread, keep up the good work, you are very much appreciated.

There are outstanding schools in deprived areas.

who says they are outstanding? OFSTED or parents? Are there lots of children bussed in from MC areas? No? Thought not

We, as a nation, somehow need to facilitate an even playing field regarding choices about family sizes.
All families should be limited to a certain family size due to sensible economic choices. However, it is known that certain groups do not have to consider mortgage restrictions/ability to afford a larger rental property.
I personally know families who fancy another child, have the child, and then spend many hours arguing about the size of property they should now be 'entitled to'. The ability for certain socio-economic groups to have no real responsibility for the financial support of those 'economic choices' is blatantly unjust.
The end result is many more 'socially disadvantaged' children, who should then seemingly be prioritized through the education system?
I'm not in the goats and plasma TVs brigade, and I totally support the view that children with disabilities/SEN should receive additional support, but I do support the view that something should be done to balance the affordability of family sizes - whether that be through somehow withdrawing the financial support for huge families who do not have the economic means to support themselves.
By creating the means for such large numbers of financially underprivileged children, we are creating the perfect environment for an unjust education system.
I'm well aware that some affluent families have multiple children, and then circumstances change for various reasons, but despite the recent changes, it still seems to be an easy choice for some.
I'm ready to be flamed, but I had a family I could afford, and ensure that I pay for them. If everyone attempted to do the same, I'm sure we wouldn't be in this mess.

I think you'd find that fee paying parents would pull their kids out of school if they were faced with a few very difficult kids in each class.

Also a child excluded for behavioural reasons would generally blossom in a small class rather then a class of 32.

I don't believe that the schools with the best ofsteds are the ones best suited to expelled students. It goes beyond that. The school ethos and how teachers manage students with extra needs really counts. My DC have an outstanding school, however they really struggle to support students.

Whilst FSM maybe a good place to start it can not be relied upon as an indicator for anything.
FSM GROSSLY underestimates true financial poverty (as it captures benefit claimants and is optional for parents to apply for) as well as being completely inadequate in measuring child poverty.

True measures of child poverty are multidimensional...
www.unicef.org/socialpolicy/files/A_Multidimensional_Approach_to_Measuring_Child_Poverty(2).pdf

And for what it's worth GCSEs are no indication of achievement either - my child probably won't have his 5 A-C at 16.... It will not mean he hasn't achieved. It's just achievement that is not measured.

Statistics are nothing without the understanding behind it.

Schools in deprived and wealthy area have GOOD ofsteds. But also schools in deprived areas have BAD ofsteds. An ofsted is more then the GCSE grades of a school. A school can have great GCSE results and still have a poor ofsted. Ofsted look closely at value added of children attending a school

I agree with you, MrsJuice.

Unfortunately the current benefits system doesn't help children. It used to puzzle me that the families who were least able to look after their children had the largest families - many of the children with various needs and problems - often due to neglect of various kinds. It's an unpleasant fact that some families see having children as a way of making money - for people who work children are a drain on their resources. And society - teachers and health/ social services have to pick up the pieces whilst children really suffer in these families.

Well said Dustypeas.!!

I agree mrsjuice

I seen plenty of people in my home town who somehow manage to be catapulted into higher categories for everything whilst my dd misses out. I spend hours a day on school runs. Everyone else got the school they wanted didn't seem to matter where it was. I could pretty much throw a ball from my door and hit the catchment line for a school in desperately wanted yet I meet people from much further away who got in.

It took me ages to find a nursery place. 3 is a bit young for rejection emails but she's had three.

I lurked on appeals threads and school threads for ages before I properly joined. It scared the crap out of me how hard it was to get in anywhere even if you move into catchment after the date. Yet I know people who moved/swapped houses and got kids straight in.

I try and keep a level head and tell myself they must have met criteria we didn't but it's hard it's hard to see everyone around you get what they want. No matter how late they go about it or how little effort they put in.

It would be even harder if there was just yet another stipulation that put my already bottom of list children further down. It's hard enough as it is

I think that OFSTED is a fairer indicator of whether a school is good or bad than a bunch of middle class parents deciding to reject a school en masse.

My daughter is at an OFSTED inadequate school. We have a good income so would not benefit from my suggestion. I have not moved my daughter as she is happy and I have time to make up for the inadequcies of the school. Infact she has a achieved exceeding expectations in all areas of the foundation stage. There is a crisis of school places in our area for year 1 so its not easy to move school without moving house.

In older years there is less pressure on places and quite a few children who have been excluded have joined the school. I feel its unfair to subject very needy/ challenging children to a string of supply teachers, constant policy change and the enviroment of an OFSTED inadequate school. The school is failing to cater for children without special needs so what hope do they have of helping more difficult children?

No one wants their child to attend an OFSTED inadequate school, but there are some sections of society who are hurt far more by poor quality education than others.

www.theguardian.com/education/2010/sep/03/social-class-achievement-school

Social class has more of an affect on educational outcomes than anything else.
I feel the only way to give opportunity is to get a better mix of social classes at state schools.

From that article

It argues that one of the reasons why class determines how white pupils perform at school is that white working-class parents may have lower expectations of their children than working-class parents from other ethnic groups.

That, along with other things said in the article, indicate that it's not all about money. It's about the attitude of parents towards education.

There has to be something that can be done to start to change the attitudes of parents with low expectations. Not that long ago, it was considered perfectly normal to go out for a few beers and then drive yourself home. It was normal for the majority of people to smoke, whenever and wherever they wanted. I know it's not the same, but it shows that over a relatively short amount of time, society's attitudes can be changed for the better if the will is there.

Government should concentrate on doing that instead of thinking up ways to positively discriminate in favour of one group of people when doing that is automatically going to detrimental to another group of people. Maybe the latter group of people won't be hurt quite as much as the former, but that still doesn't make it ok. All children are equally important.

Coolas it is NOT the best indicator we have at all.

Using just FSM is lazy and irresponsible in assessing child poverty as it can not be used in isolation. It only tells us about parent who are in receipt of certain benefits and who are engaged enough to fill out a form.

And GSCEs might be a passport to A Levels but they are not a passport to FE. They are an attainment measure not a measure of progress so they tell you nothing.

Also when you look at school census FSM and SEN can be the same children... So it's then not clear where the 'underachievement' comes from. Is it the SEN needs or child poverty? Do the parents who qualify for FSM qualify because they are carers?
That is a whole different debate.

Its actually very dangerous to look at data without understanding. It's catastrophic to base interventions, opinion and decision upon data you don't fully understand or know where it is coming from.

I have to comment on this post

'I don't agree with the point in the first post that if a child is excluded it gets moves to the bed school in the area. If it's excluded segregate it with other trouble makers in special schools and don't let it go near children who actually want to work and whose education might get disrupted.'

Horrible, horrible, horrible.

FSM means nothing and therefore the statistics with it are pretty meaningless.

I know many youngsters who didnt qualify for FSM because of parent receiving working tax credit yet family income was lower than that of those receiving FSM. My own son included who got 10 A - C grades at GCSE and 4 A Levels at A -C grades. Nothing special in that as a lot of his classmates did a lot better, but a good example of FSM statistics meaning nothing.

One thing in common though - good parenting was an enabler for all students.

"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? "

No, of course not- that would be ridiculous. Besides, it's FAR easier to put them in care, and then they get top priority for school admissions, Pupil Premium Plus of £1,900 a year and a dedicated team of professionals monitoring their educational outcomes.

Good parenting is an enabler but good teaching even more so.

The outstanding/good schools in deprived areas that are achieving well above the national average at L4 in Y6 SATS will always have excellent leadership and a strong staff team.

The inadequate/poor schools will often have high turnover of staff, high staff absence and low morale.

In some cases examples of both schools can be within a couple of 100m of each other.