Labour reviewing school admission criteria

[JustAlice]

"Sir Keir Starmer plans to update the Equality Act to give public authorities a new duty to consider a person’s “socio-economic background”.
The changes could mean that schools are forced to give pupils from a working-class background priority when applying for school places, according to Conservative research, instead of judging applications based on how far away from a school someone lives."

Last year BBC had articles on how Brighton and Hove Labour council implemented similar policy, and now substancial % of school places goes to children on FSM instead of childre living closer to the school, making average % of FSM in them closer to the council average.
Protests didn't lead to anything.

If Starmer is going to rollout this model for the whole country, I'm torn, because though I'm against class division and think that current model encourages it

1. I strongly disagree that the families on less than minimal wage income are the only working people in the country. Maybe call them deprived to be honest.
2. In Brighton, faith schools are still not impacted.

YABU - we should be happy about this
YANBU - not a good idea

Why do you find it distasteful? It is just the truth.

Inclusion of children with severe SEN has been completely unsuccessful and has made state schools worse for it. Teachers are over worked. Children are negatively affected and the children with SEN are overwhelmed and are not learning.

Moving FSM children, who statistically come from backgrounds who do not support education, who have higher levels of behaviour issues, higher levels of neglect, will simply mean that those schools will become shit and the parents of MC children will move to other schools to get away from them.

Could a proponent of this sort of policy (noting that the present evidence for this government pursuing such a policy is scant) please explain what the main reasons are for bad schools being bad and why bussing children around will improve things for all the children.

“And actually I have sympathy as many people don't gave a safe walking route as they officially live within 2 miles but the foot route is several miles due to the railway and airfield.”

Councils should be planning careful walking and cycling routes for all children and they should take priority, above drivers. Just like they do in much of Europe. Kids who walk and cycle arrive fresh, have better mental and physical health, which then ties in to academic achievement. We should be trying to get away from driving everywhere culture in the first place. School buses could be green - like in European city centres. We are always behind the curve on this stuff and have an unhealthy lazy attitude to health and education.

‘Free’ bus passes may be free to the children but they still cost money! The council still has to pay for the buses to transport them!

If MC children (which is who I infer you are talking about) are the issue then why the proposal to shake up schools so “mouthy little Sophia and James” can be made responsible for dragging up the performance of poor schools?

Because heaven forbid we support the children who are more likely to be net earners in the future.

If this is a real policy approach, there is something deeply nasty about telling families with more financial means that they are on the bottom for access to better state schools due to having more money, but then charging a luxury tax on school fees if they decide to use that money to pay for their kids education themselves.

It begins to look like it's punitive, it's designed to negatively impact their children. And there is an attitude I see a lot, on MN and elsewhere, that by making things worse for people who are seen as privileged in some way, it somehow balances out their good fortune. It's almost a kind of magical thinking, like it will balance the karma.

It absolutely does start to look like, if you have the good luck, nutrition, correct shoes, etc, to grow up tall, we are going to cut off your feet to make sure you remain the same height as the guy who didn't have those advantages. And if you complain that maybe it would make more sense to make sure all the kids have what they need to grow up tall, you are told you are entitled and your tallness is morally suspect anyway.

I don’t think it’s that. At least not in my mind.

It’s about the natural right and instinct of parents to help their children achieve. If a school is better because more of the families care about and help with education, including expectations of behaviour and support for the school’s decisions, then people will want to send their children there over a less good school with fewer families like that. Catchments allow for this. That’s how it works, and why middle class parents (including the progressive left-wingers) buy to get near better schools.

It’s the belief that we can engineer our way out of family priorities and expectations that I find so fanciful.

More like heaven forfend we support the children who have most need of support….

Try to do it without using dc of parents who do care about education and impacting them negatively.

“Because heaven forbid we support the children who are more likely to be net earners in the future.”

If you do not sort out low expectations, addiction, crime and drop outs, generational trauma, amongst a significant part of the population and their children, then our children will just be paying for them later on anyway? What is the point of being a net earner if you don’t get any privileges or get to keep most of it anyway.

That’s why fair banding is a good idea.

And why do you think it should fall on other children to give that support?

I think this is about teacher recruitment and expectations primarily. They cannot recruit teachers in very deprived schools anymore. So the cycle of low expectations continue. The aim is simply to put some kids into schools with a demographic of higher expectations but to keep the threshold of higher expectations high enough for the school to continue to be successful and also recruit teachers.

Why can’t they get teachers into some schools? The school funding is no worse than for other schools. The teachers don’t earn less. What is it then?

Yep. Agree 100%

“Why can’t they get teachers into some schools? The school funding is no worse than for other schools. The teachers don’t earn less. What is it then?”

It is the fact that they cannot do their job properly in some deprived schools because all their time is spent on behavioural issues, social issues, additional paperwork etc.
Most teachers just want to, well actually, teach and teach kids who show up fed, having slept enough and with a functioning pencil case (including glue sticks!) and with some basic respect towards others, pupils and staff.
Just like they want kids to show up with the basic in Reception. Turn taking, toileting, age appropriate speech and language, get dressed for PE.
For every stage of education, there is an expected norm. A lot of families appear not able to get their kids to the expected norm standard anymore. To send them in with the right kit etc and a packed lunch etc., to send them to bed on time, ensure a basic amount of homework is done.

We agree.

But I don’t see how swapping children around will help with any of this. The families are the source of the chaos.

Because teachers don’t want to work in some schools.

My children’s school have two types of teacher; ones that have worked there for donkeys years and ones that only last a year, some, not even that.

We have a horrendously high number of staff that have been assaulted by parents in the playground (there is a special area, at the end of the school field for pick up and drop off for children who’s parents are no longer allowed on school grounds due to issues), each year, I’ve seen my child’s teacher spat at, screamed at (by the parents), they get absolutely no respect at all.

The ones that have been there forever usually taught the parents themselves, so fair a little better.

Add in the behaviour issues of the children in the classroom, and In all honesty, I’d think “fuck that” and look for a job elsewhere too.

What is it you think a dc, who has been instilled with caring about education, can do? What is their proximity doing exactly.

Are you more theoretical on this, as I’m not sure you can know the reality of how hard it is to overturn parental dissuasion on education.

See the pp below from moving her dc to grammar and reactions to that.

What do you want mc / striving dc to do exactly?

And how do you know disruption won’t just hinder them instead.

Again, I agree. But we need to change the families’ attitudes and conduct, not shuffle children.

Yeah, but you can’t. You won’t. They don’t see it as a problem. They are happy living that way, the people I live around are certainly happier than me, anyway.

“But I don’t see how swapping children around will help with any of this. The families are the source of the chaos.”

I don’t think they will do that though. I think they will simply give some poorer families the choice to access better schools and only the motivated poorer families will sign up to this choice, because they know it will be more effort to fit into such a school. And so the schools will be fine, because it is all about the parenting and the motivation.

And the reason I say that is because like some others on here my kids have gone to grammars where they have introduced much lower scores for PP and yet, there is not much demand for it.
I know why. The schools are super intense with a heavily invested parent group and a push from the schools themselves. This is the case in all successful schools, grammars, church, leafy catchment comp. It is a culture and ethos that many people do not want. And you cannot force people into that culture. You can only give them the choice to access it.

Three agreements in a row from me!

It’s for this reason that catchment tinkering is so pointless, and almost certainly will do more harm than good. The sorts of parents you described - and I can well believe there are enough to be a significant problem for schools - are not going to change because their children are sent to a better school than the rules presently allow. They’ll just export their attitudes to the better school.