BBC article: Outstanding schools take too few poor pupils

[Ginmummy1]

I spotted this article today, and wondered what others thought of it.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36926766

I thought the title was misleading. It implies that outstanding schools are deliberately choosing not to take poorer pupils, which I don’t think is accurate.

The report apparently found little overall bias in council-run secondary schools, and also that primary schools appear to be fairly balanced in terms of their intake. I am struggling, therefore, to understand the issue?

It says “the intakes of grammar schools, single-sex secondaries, non-Christian faith schools and schools rated outstanding by Ofsted all fail to reflect the proportion of poorer children in the areas immediately outside their gates“. It also suggests that the figures are likely to be partly “the result of different school choices between social groups”.

So what it appears to be saying is that poorer pupils are choosing not to apply to these types of schools, so this is more about the choices made by these pupils and their families, than about the schools themselves. I can’t see any claims of the schools discriminating against poorer pupils.

It also refers to the attainment gap between rich and poor being wider than the national average in Kent, Buckinghamshire and Surrey. Presumably this is partly due to parental influence (discipline with homework, private tutoring etc) which cannot really be the fault of the schools?

I’d be interested to know what others think.

[teacherwith2kids]

However, we should also recognise that a school can't solve everything.
If a child comes to school

• Malnourished
  
• Poorly dressed
  
• Having had no sleep from living in a single room in a B&B with 4 other members of the family - or sofa surfing.
  
• Affected by domestic violence or child abuse or fleeing from another country or violent parent
  
• Having already done all the work needed to get all younger siblings out of bed, clothed, fed and to school
  
• Being told by family and community that 'education is useless for people like us / we don't go to school past the age of 11'
  

then they won't necessarily thrive, however good the school is.

[Abraiid2]

School buses are never free unless you live more than 3 miles from the nearest suitable school.

My children lived 2.2 miles from primary school and had free buses there. Has it changed? This was seven years ago.

[BertrandRussell]

"I agree, so what's your solution for improving the bog-standard comps that are failing? "

Could you define "bog standard" and "failing" please?

[teacherwith2kids]

(Bertrand, we probably need 'comps' defining as well - I can't remember whether badbad luives in a selective or partially selective area and thus by 'comp' actually means 'secondary modern / 'other school in a grammar area')

[BertrandRussell]

abraid- the distance may vary between LEAs- but I presume that free transport was to your nearest school?

[Iamnotloobrushphobic]

Free transport is 2 miles for primary school and 3 miles for senior school.

[Twowrongsdontmakearight]

There was another thread like this recently. Not sure if it was teacherwith2kids but someone said that even in 'proper' good comprehensive schools those on FSM tend to languish in the lower sets. So the school itself might not be the issue.

[ploddinalong]

I think the reported result of the research was inevitable given the method they used ....

"The bloggers looked at the proportion of pupils on free school meals in every mainstream state school in England at both primary and secondary level. They compared this with a measure of the proportion of children in income-deprived families in the population within 4km (2.5 miles) of secondary schools and 2km (1.2 miles) of primary schools."

In my experience, most good/outstanding schools have catchment areas that are much less than those distances. The catchments decrease as the schools become more popular, and the effect is greater where surrounding schools are significantly worse.

So I think we should not be surprised at the non-startling fact that educated people move heaven and earth (or at least move house) to get their children into good schools - of course they do/should. The real crime is that so many schools are still Inadequate or Require Improvement. If all the schools in an area are good then the 'problem' simply goes away, and we should expect nothing less.

[sashh]

So what it appears to be saying is that poorer pupils are choosing not to apply to these types of schools, so this is more about the choices made by these pupils and their families, than about the schools themselves.

There is a difference between choice and free choice.

If a parent is feckless or maybe has depression or other issues that mean they can't jump through the hoops they don't have a choice, they take what they are given.

Schools know how to look as if they are non discriminatory but in practice do exclude.

You can exclude by uniform, if the blazer is £20 at one school and £80 at another that can make the difference between choosing that school and not.

Some schools have different uniforms for different years, maybe a different jumper or tie, but sometimes it is totally different.

RC schools used to have 'baptised catholic' as a criteria - they had low numbers of EAL students, until Polish kids started turning up, now the child has to be baptised ASAP and / or before 12 months - guess when it is traditional to baptize your baby in Poland?

Sibling rules help bring in more children from the families you already have and want and the argument for siblings to be in the same school for ease of family transport falls down when you have grammar and single sex schools.

At a training day the SENCO and her team were discussing the number of SEN children arriving at school with SEN parents, again more difficult to jump through the hoops if you have trouble filling in forms or understanding what is being asked.

teacherwith2kids

Agree with your list, but the first one - I worked in an academy in a very deprived area - school breakfast was both compulsory and free for pupils and staff.

It was also fairly healthy, porridge but not cereal, fruit, hot drinks, I think the least healthy was the beans on toast.

And you had to sit with your students, so they learned table manners as well as being fed.

[pleasemothermay1]

Sorry but it is about choice

When I fostered many of the children went to the faking schools in part because there parents couldn't get there shit together to do more than enrol in to the closet school but also

Because a school that is badly run and failing academically is less likey to borther you about lateness , notice neglect or even if they look fed when they did come into care it was usually a nightmare as the schools were ill equipped to deal with childrens high needs and it some cases were surprised the children had ss Invloved
for some parents shit schools are a active choice belive it or not the mask the parents lacking and when they fail they can just say well they went to xxxx it's terrible and no one will question

The types of school that are shit hot on attendance will demand parents invloment and require clean washed smart uniforms negleful parents will often avoid like the plague

[BertrandRussell]

"for some parents shit schools are a active choice belive it or not the mask the parents lacking and when they fail they can just say well they went to xxxx it's terrible and no one will question"

Do you have any evidence for this statement?

[pleasemothermay1]

One of the parents of a child we looked after

Was horrified when ss wanted a change of school the parent tried to take ss to court over it it basically boiled down to the fact

The school was outstanding and would not be tolrating the 60% truncey the child had and the other school and made it quite clear that the child would be allocated a mentor and any deviation from the cp plan and child would be kept and school and ss rung

They were keeping a eye out for his uniform , lateness as well as attendance mum was required to come to parent events the other school tbh it seemed as if it were a relief if parents didn't turn up

The parent hated the new school and was always at logger heads with the staff tbh it was the first place that child had displine , consitant care and some watching out for him

One would imagine mum preferred the other school because they didn't give a shit and she could be the mother she wanted to be and not the mother my FC needed

[teacherwith2kids]

sashh, I agree about breakfasts - I also have worked at schools that provided breakfasts, and it did help - as did school dinners with enough staff to ensure that children take and eat decent food choices, even when supper was a packet of crisps.

It is so hard, though - when a child rolls up at school at 4.5 with no spoken language, because they have never been interacted with, they have been dragged between 4 or 5 different temporary homes and pre-school is non-compulsory, the gap is already huge between them and the child who has been talked to, read to, taken to groups by, an involved carer and has been in decent pre-school education from the age of 2.5 ... schools can, and do, strain every sinew to bridge that gulf, but it is there even from the very beginning of school.

[pleasemothermay1]

BertrandRussell Wed

Yes 8 years of fostering

It's not all parents some just don't have the education or capability to do more than put there children in the nearest school

But like I say for some putting your child in a shit school were your below parr parenting will go unchallenged will be a choice

it may shock you that this goes on but sadly it the reality and many of our abused and neglected children are amount the poorest

Thought just because your poor doesn't mean your automatically a neglectful parent

[Lurkedforever1]

I agree with both teacher and bert

Re parents deliberately choosing schools that won't pick up on problems at home, I was that child. But I still don't think it's a common problem. The vast majority of parents likely to do that won't be in the position to pick a good one anyway.

[teacherwith2kids]

To me, that is then an even stronger argument that rather than looking at ways to 'ship the brightest and best' out to 'better' schools, if we are moving children 'out of immediate area' at all, we should be looking to move the most disadvantaged, the lest well-parented, those from families with the lowest maternal education into those 'better' schools - again in an earlier thread, I suggested that all schools should be forced to take the ''wider community - e.g. borough, city - average of PP children.

[pleasemothermay1]

I no you would all like to think all parents have there children best interests at heart and want what's best education wise

I am sure any teacher or sw mumsnetter will tell you that is not always the case sadly


We have had parents who refuse to choose any school and will leave it up to ss because they have missed the dead line and failed to look at any schools or attend any open evenings , parents who there choice is based on how close ThE high school is to The youngest primay so they can still do the school run for them🙁 It's awful

[pleasemothermay1]

poster Lurkedforever1 Wed 03-Aug-16 17:32:18

Not saying it's common but dose happen and saying it dosent is neive I think

I won't even tell you some of the other reasons I have heard of not sending children to a acdemically better school when there child would be in the catchment 🙁 It's very sad.

[teacherwith2kids]

Please, I know. So in my utopia, all schools would be good - as in, all schools would maximise the progress of all of their intake, and be judged for that, not their absolute results. In my more pragmatic utopia, schools would be funded as a careful and nuanced function of their intake, so schools in challenging areas would be able to fund and deliver what their pupils needed (school breakfasts and dinners and free playschemes throughout the summer holidays would be a good place to start). In my 'well, it could be done immediately' semi-utopia, all schools would have to admit children to the 'wider community' average of PP / %FSM, even if that meant that the catchment for such children was miles wider, or the pass level for the 11+ was very, very much lower for such children.

[teacherwith2kids]

(And that might mean an element of 'assignment' or 'compulsion', along with free transport and uniform, rather than saying 'well, you didn't choose the school so we don't have to admit you, trala')

[pleasemothermay1]

We have adopted children and you are actually allowed to choose any school because they have had such a poor start

However this dosent solve the issue with children whom are at home but on the Cp register

Those are the children who often need a good school the most but the parent still has PR and can choose even if we randomised the system there is still a chance that these children would not get a good school

The biggest indicator in weather a child will do well is not the school they attend is there parents attauide to education

I am no scholar but understand the key to unlock the world is a sound education it's diffcult to get some parents who make it there life's work to battle with authority to get that

if I tell you I and ss couldn't even get one parent to see the benefit of allowing her child to have a passport so we could take them away to the Bahamas to swim with dolphins your on a hiding to nothing

We were told he will be spoilt if he's goes on Hoildays like that take him to haven like normal f- ing folk

We had to place him in respite and go with out him poor mite

Most parents who get it would jump at the chance to have there child


One thing I will say is I think child benfit should go on free school meals 4-18 breakfast and lunch and school uniform and Hoilday club for the poorest

Then no parent can say they cannot give there child a meal because it will be provided at school

[teacherwith2kids]

I like the cb idea ... modifying my 'if I ruled the world' plan as we speak.....

[pleasemothermay1]

I really think they missed a trick with it the middle class save it for ballet lessons or Lego land while negleful parents by lotto cards and poorer good parents choose between heating or eating

We with draw it from all parents and simply say

We are providing a breakfast and a lunch free uniforms and free travel and Hoilday clubs for the disadvantaged

I also think we must separate children whom are poor and well parented and children who are poor and neglected and abused

The outcomes for those set of children will be vastly Different. If your parents get it but you just have no money I feel you will still achive because you have somthing money can't buy but if your poor and your parents just don't value education or are shit I am afraid it will be a up hill struggle whatever services are provided

[Iamnotloobrushphobic]

Yes, yes, all schools should be good and have good pastoral care. We should be blaming the education system for failing some children rather than blaming middle class parents with deep pockets and sharp elbows. Most good parents will choose the best school available to them but if all schools were good it wouldn't be an issue and no child would be subjected to an inadequate school.

[RhodaBull]

I also think we must separate children whom are poor and well parented and children who are poor and neglected and abused

The outcomes for those set of children will be vastly Different. If your parents get it but you just have no money I feel you will still achive because you have somthing money can't buy but if your poor and your parents just don't value education or are shit I am afraid it will be a up hill struggle whatever services are provided

Ne'er a truer word was said. Poverty of expectation is what harms a child's chances.