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.

This is an interesting thread. The primary school near me (outstanding Ofsted, people are desperate to get their kids in) is changing their admissions criteria for September 2017 to give priority to children eligible for free school meals.

I wonder whether it is worth other schools also doing this?

"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."

The difficulty with this - perhaps a very English difficulty - is that a MC parent will, statistically, tend to regard a school containing lots of children from challenging backgrounds as as 'less good' than a school full of the offspring of their MC peers.

And the lack of those MC parents / children, because they choose another school, makes the remaining school have to work a LOT harder to remain good ... and so we are back to the current situation again...

When you say that CB should go in free school meals etc for the poorest how exactly would that work?
Children from unemployed households already get free school meals and in some areas a uniform grant at senior age. The primary school my son used to attend provided free breakfasts to unemployed families and 50p a day to everyone else. Families who didn't work generally didn't use breakfast club as that would mean needing to get out of bed earlier and we can't possibly expect them to do that! The children often brought packed lunches as they didn't like the school meals. Then you have the problem of deciding who are the poorest families. A family in social housing on full unemployment benefits might have more disposable income than the working low income family with s mortgage to pay.
What happens to the child benefit of preschoolers in low income families? Will they be able to keep their child benefit until the child starts school?
What about poor families who home educate? Do we only allow those who choose traditional education to benefit from the new services provided with the child benefit money? If you opt out of school do you get nothing? Does that mean that we can't trust the poorest to raise their children and provide for them adequately? It seems a bit like punishing the many because of the failings of the few to me.

CruCru,

Interesting - and interesting that they cap it at 25% and place it after siblings.

Even my achingly Middle England town and its neighbour have an average of 24-25% of pupils eligible for FSM.

Crucru I thought such a criteria was barred by the overall admissions code... I could see DD school doing something similar if it is allowed.

The best thing I find in this country is middle class families push and invest in their children and inspire them in hard working(not cheating). In my home country its usually opposite that many poorer family kids are working and trying really hard at schools as its the only escaping ticket. I think the benefit system in this country contributes to this tendency. Because if you have children at young age, not marriage and the more children and the poorer you are the more benefit you will receive so why you have to work hard?

Problem is like with anything you will always get variety in quality

Some Heads are better than others some teachers are inspiring and are not getting what there worth and frankly some teachers need to be sacked

But sadly until we admit the fault is not with the quailty of education the schools are providing and it's pretty much down to how much your parents value education then we won't ever get any were

That why even in oustanding schools the children who do well are the children who's parents give a shit

I a good school a child with negleful and abusive parents often fail it just takes longer than it would in a bad school with no support

From my own background I can tell you I didn't get any exams not one but it wasn't for the schools lack of trying sadly my mother didn't give a shit I remember the head of year ringing her and saying you know we're really worried

Her reply was unless she dead or dying don't ring me again 🙁 It wouldn't of mattered if I had attended eaton

I don't think with the best will in the world and school can parent and teach

Those who are being taught are being parented at home those who are being parented the teachers have no time to teach

poster Iamnotloobrushphobic Wed 03-Aug-16 18:45:56

I just think it's cuts the bullshit all children have a hot meal in there but twice a day and a clean paid for school uniform

If they can't get out of bed then it's neglect not anything else

You take away the excuses people have for the children failing
And make sure child benfit it spent on what it's for the child

There are obviously seriously neglectful parents. And I have learned today that there are parents who deliberately choose crap schools so their crap parenting isn't exposed- I didn't know that. But I do think it's a bit of a red herring. Hard cases make bad law, as they say. The HUGE issue is the run of the mill parents who do the best they can and just can't, through lack of knowledge, education, motivation, time or energy find their way through the education minefield. For example- the mother of a friend of my ds's actually went to try and buy some 11+ work books for her son, but was so intimidated by the staff in Waterstones that she went straight back out of the shop without buying them. I think we forget how difficult "cultural capital" is for some people to access...

Also nobody on MN will admit, but sending your child to a "good" school means they don't have to mix with peers from disadvantaged backgrounds.

I posted on another thread recently about literacy rates in areas with multiple deprivation. Whatever their intentions, parents who can't read will find it very difficult to access information, and meet the requirements for some schools.

My eldest DD went to a very good state girls school. Think 90% 5 + GCSE at A-C. The Head teacher met with prospective parents who were considering applying in groups of about 20, looked us all in the eye and told us that the school strived for excellent academic results, had a very strong behaviour code and strict uniform guidelines. The girls would need to work hard and any swearing would lead to an automatic suspension. To balance that the girls would have terrific opportunities in sport, creative arts and could travel abroad. Her message was very clear. Don't apply if you are not absolutely on board with us. Unsurprisingly less than 5% of pupils receive FSM.

Nateelijah there is one memorable poster who actually does, with admirable honesty, say exactly that. But only one.

The primary school near me (outstanding Ofsted, people are desperate to get their kids in) is changing their admissions criteria for September 2017 to give priority to children eligible for free school meals.I wonder whether it is worth other schools also doing this?

It will still only be the savviest of FSM families that will benefit - i.e. the ones that actually read the admissions criteria. There's a good school near me that does the same thing and hardly anyone applies under that category.

Also nobody on MN will admit, but sending your child to a "good" school means they don't have to mix with peers from disadvantaged backgrounds.

I don't think that is strictly true as there are many ofsted outstanding schools in deprived areas which get decent results despite having children from a variety of backgrounds including those who are EAL and those who come from families where there is generations of worklessness. My sons first school was one of those schools. Then we moved to a different area and the school was filled
Mainly with white middle class children but the school was only ofsted average and the results only marginally better than the previous school. My son didn't stay in that school for very long as it was clear that the marginally better results were only achieved due to mass private tutoring and the school was actually quite rubbish.
pleasemother very many poorer people do spend the child benefit on the children and mostbpoornparenta do have their children's best interests at heart. Why do we need to treat all
Poorer parents as inadequate and inept just because a minority are unable to prioritise their children's needs? What next, food stamps instead of benefits? Can we not trust any poorer people to manage their own money?

....most poorer parents.....

YY to:

""Shouldn't all children receive the best possible education, regardless of their family budget, location or parental engagement?" Yes, they should. Unfortunately, the supporters of grammar schools, faith schools and other schools that practice more covert means of selection do not agree."

And

"Schools with lower percentages of children on FSM / PP are much more likely to be Outstanding - so to say that Outstanding schools have lower proportions of children from poorer backgrounds doesn't tell you a huge amount, because 'Outstanding Ofsted' and 'Low % FSM / PP' are not independent variables - having low FSM / PP makes it more likely that schools will be graded Outstanding."

Shouldn't all children receive the best possible education, regardless of their family budget, location or parental engagement?

Unfortunately the Sutton Trust / Rowntree Foundation, I can't remember which, found that parental engagement is the most important factor affecting a child's outcome. Hence the Sure Start Centres initiative with all the free books etc. Even that didn't have as big an impact as hoped.

So basically, even if every child attended the best school with the best teachers, with no disruption, the DC with disengaged parents, who don't value education, would do worse than their peers.

Also nobody on MN will admit, but sending your child to a "good" school means they don't have to mix with peers from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Not so much to avoid mixing with peers from disadvantaged backgrounds as to avoid those who are disengaged from education, are disruptive, and spoil the chances of everyone else in their class.

If you live in an area that still has grammar schools - your child may get in.
They may get in because they are bright, or they may be bright but not be ready for exams (so may not get in).
On the other hand, if you have a few bob to spare you can hire a tutor - which helps. Not many children get one to one in a school environment after all.
It's also surprising what a cash (or equivalent) incentive can do when a child is not that interested in swotting (for what seems like a pointless exam).
I was not at all academic, but swotted my arse off as I was promised a Sony Walkman. It worked and I passed my eleven plus.
It faded after that though, as I no longer had a carrot dangled in front of me. I opted for working in a record shop, rather than staying on for A levels.

If I ruled the world school would not be based just on age. Flexibility of 1 year for entering reception, and I know you can defer but in my world the child would start reception with the other reception kids.

Flexibility for children to 'fast track and 'slow track' - so GCSE year would have nothing to do with your age, for most people it would be 16 but some kids it would be 17 or 18 so they come out with better grades.

Ability to transfer a child out of mainstream to get intensive support if needed.

Bring back EMA but base it on both parental income and attainment so getting the magic 5 GCSEs get's you £20 a week.

I could go on

YY to bringing back EMA. I dropped out of my A levels and went to work at McDonald's due to having no money and bringing in EMA meant other students didn't have to make that choice.

Means tested EMA would make a big difference. Also, it's true - not everyone is ready for GCSE at 16 (some are ready a year earlier, some need longer, some would be better following the functional skills path for English and maths).
The issue the OP referred to is most noticeable with academies. The blogger Disillusioned Idealist (head of history dept in a girls' comp in Kent) has a very interesting piece of research on how the intake of Harris academies doesn't reflect the FSM levels in local feeder primary schools. Surprise, surprise it is much smaller at the academy!
So these children are in catchment but mysteriously don't get places.

Bertrand, sorry for the delay in replying, my husband has reminded me that the free bus route was set up because our own village school was closed about 40 years ago and the road was considered too dangerous, even then, for children to walk or cycle the 2.2 miles to the next village primary. It was a fantastic service and used to pick up children from other villages nearer to the primary, so we didn't have to drive children to school. Mine used it from the moment they started in reception.

The problem with taking GCSEs when you're 'ready' means that it is much easier for everyone to get top grades, continuing the problem of how you differentiate between students later on when they apply to university, etc. That is why the old module system with some pupils taking bits and pieces over an extended period wasn't fit for purpose.