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.

Good parenting is an enabler but good teaching even more so

I think parenting is a far more significant influence than teaching.

Agreed, rollon- a child who has a secure, loving family but poor teaching is disadvantaged, but more likely to do well educationally than a child with a chaotic or harmful family life and good teaching.

Good teaching undoubtedly makes a huge difference, but I would agree that it is the lesser of the two influences on a child's outcomes.

I also agree that good parenting is far more influential than good teaching.

Otherwise you wouldn't have children in the same classes getting completely different results.

I agree with the rest of your post though Ohmygrood, and weak leadership in a school undoubtably makes a difference. The individual teachers are likely to be just as good, but low morale and a high turnover of staff is almost inevitable when the behaviour issues that stem from a lack of parenting aren't effectively dealt with.

good parenting is far more influential than good teaching

but not as influential as a good peer group.That's the crux

Otherwise you wouldn't have children in the same classes getting completely different results

I don't follow. Individual children's ability must surely have a massive part to play?

I would argue that good parenting has a greater influence on educational outcomes than peer group, but I agree that a positive peer group is an extremely important factor.

This report is interesting, if a little out of date.

Of course individual ability will be a big factor in results achieved, but again that shows that it's not all down to schools and teachers.

I think peer group is probably a very important factor, but with that in mind, it's not surprising that some parents want to keep their children away from other children who may have a negative influence on their learning because of their own or their parents attitudes to education. So again, if we don't want a better mix of children in schools, then it would make sense to tackle the issue of ineffectual and negative parenting so that engaged parents who do care about education have less reason to want to keep their own dc away from other who may be a bad influence, and will have less reason to jump through the various hoops to get their dc into schools where parents have similar values.

i think you'll find that most kids will generally choose their own peer group based on their upbringing even if the class is mixed. that was my experience at school and its been largely my experience with my kids.

There seems to be an assumption that it's unfair that rich people can access more stuff-houses in 'better' catchments, tutors, books, private schools, musical instrument lessons etc etc

I read an article recently that said poor children were at a disadvantage to rich children the minute they started school. I disagree; they are at a disadvantage the minute they are conceived. This has always been the case though-rich people can afford to pay money to get stuff that they want and will benefit their families.

We can't sort society by stopping this and making everyone equal? Communism, anyone?

and second and third children are at a disadvantage to first born. So should we allow them some slack and get worse grades for entry to the best schools and unis?

i've recently moved one of my kids to a different school for sixth form. it gets an outstanding rating rather than the previous school which had good, but more importantly to me it gets better results (plus it is nearer though, thats not so relevant). I was surprised at how few parents chose to do this, instead letting their kids remain at a mediocre school. So are we to enforce these choices on parents if they are not going to make the 'right' decisions?

Parenting is definitely the overriding influence, especially up to about 14/15.

Things will never be equal, it is unrealistic to think you can make it so. The best social leveller was free university education available for all.

Completely mad. Not you, but your post.

Teenage children are certainly good at feigning disinterest in their parents' views or mine always have been . In teenage years the influence of your friends can be huge. If 100% of them are after good careers at great university in an academically selective school (and single sex in our case) that can be quite a beneficial influence. I am happy to buy that.

Coolas

UNICEF probably explain it better than me

But basically a combination of datasets; not just income but access to health services, opportunities for education and leisure, the health of the population, the make up of families, employment...
So I wouldn't use FSM but instead a community profile

And whilst even that is interesting and a better measure it still tells you nothing nor can it make any prediction about an individual child's outcome as it's still only part of a wider environmental influences that impact upon a child's development.

As educationally successful... I would like to see progress - what is in between the start and end points. There is some progress data around but then you have to take into account of what end of key stage SATS stand for so all things considered I wouldn't judge a secondary on them.

When I said to a fairly illiterate year 7 that he had come with a level 4 in English, he told me that the TA had helped him do most of it

Do you mean the TA helped him do most of a KS2 test?

I think you're very naive op.

The school I work in has a lot of challenging kids in and requires improvement.The school my kids go to is Good.The school I work in is absolutely fab,actually Oustanding imvho at dealing with problem children.The teachers are top notch,they really are.

The school my kids are at really struggle to handle the one or two problem kids they have and imvho have teachers which are no better.In actual fact I think the kids are pushed far less and there are lower expectations.

I just don't see what swopping kids over would do.

"The school I work in has a lot of challenging kids in and requires improvement.The school my kids go to is Good.The school I work in is absolutely fab,actually Oustanding imvho at dealing with problem children.The teachers are top notch,they really are."

Why don't you transfer your children to the school that you work at if you think it is better? Requires improvement was the old satisfactory.
Do you think its possible that a school that is "outstanding" with problem children is failing to meet the needs of the non problem children/ Ie. the school is so over run with problem children that the non problem children don't get a look in? Ofcourse it may well be that your children's school have coasted on their intake and are in for shock with their next OFSTED.

In my area the only schools with spare places are schools with truely dire OFSTEDs. I really do not see how putting a vunerable (aka excluded) child into an inadequate school is going to help anyone.

"I just don't see what swopping kids over would do."

It is not swopping kids over, but ensuring that each school has a reasonable social mix and that either school is completely swamped with challenging/ SEN children. I don't think that a huge team of TAs at the rough school is the answer.

I wouldn't have a problem with that at all however community and being with their friends is pretty important for my dc as I suspect it would be with many families.

Children and families aren't just faceless stats.Many wouldn't give you a thank you for being shipped out to schools out of their community and away from their friends.

I think it is a noble idea and if it worked I would support it. Statistics show that the poorest children in society tend to do the least well in school. Of course it is not as simple as money and there are PP premium children who will do well but far more won't.'
You would have to fund transport as I would guess lots of children would be going to a school that is different from the one that is local

It would cause children to have to have funded transport as they wouldn't be going to their closest school, but I doubt that funding would extend to the children pushed out of their local school because of the challenging children being brought in. No, as usual, the families that take responsibility for themselves and their behaviour would be forced to sort that problem out for themselves.

I am so glad someone said this. I can't believe the op is real!