If State Education is for all and all are equal - how come people get 'priority' places?

[Fridayfeeling]

My DS2 has not got a place at the local nursery school because he does not meet the criteria. Most of which I can accept - children in danger at home etc. BUT.... I find it hard to accept that children are prioritised because they come from a family on income support and job seekers allowance - what does this have to do with a place at a nursery school? Is a child not a child? I thought state education provided for all equally?

Ours gives priority to siblings, which is fair. Most families need to have their children at the same school, for practical reasons if nothing else.

Is this a state nursery class, ie, one that is attached to a primary school?

Vivace, are you saying it's right that a child from a better off home is denied access to a nursery place just because his/her parents aren't on income support?

I am resentful indeed that people are treated differently in a system that is supposed to be for all.

The way that this actually comes out in the schooling system is interesting though - have you seen the report today that says that working class children have lower IQs than middle class children?

Do you think it is a coincidence that w/c children are treated as requiring 'more support' right from being 3 and then academics then feel they can publish reports like this? It is outrageous and this patronising prejudice starts very young.

So ultimately, in the long run, I should not care. But I think those who are being patronised and labelled should.

What Vivace said.

It is a broad brush approach to engaging families who tend to be unengaged with education, and who tend to be overrepresented in these groups.

It is a nursery attached to a school where DS1 goes - and for practical logistical reasons another setting is going to be difficult - earlier post

So people, including those who are part of the low income group, seem happy to label themselves as in greater need for education. i.e. worse parents.

I really am shocked by this. I thought it would be patronising to you? Really I did. You are perpetuating the myth that you need help and are less capable.

Or for heavens sake. You don't care about children from poor families, you are just bitter because some kids with very little are getting a tiny bit of help.
The facts are absolutely stark. We have one of the greatest class divides in education in the developed world. Research shows children from poor families fall behind their peers from better-off backgrounds by the age of just 22months, and the gap continues to widen. The more children in a school eligible for free meals, the worse the educational attainment. Poor children are one third as likely to get 5 good GCSEs as their better-off peers. This leads to a life of inequality. They are more likely to be unemployed, earn less when they do work, and grow up to die earlier. Would you swap?
Be grateful that your children don't need this provision as much as some other children.

So it's free?

My dc nursery school doesn't have any criteria, just first come first served. Criteria only apply at Reception level and are not income based.

Surely though, state education is there for all, not just the disadvantaged.
It's like saying that poorer families should have priority at NHS hospitals and doctors surgeries.
People who aren't on income support can't necessarily afford to pay privately, so why should they be discriminated against?

I care that children get so labelled so early on. Maybe you might want to consider that outcomes for children are different BECAUSE we treat them so differently?

Maybe it is almost written in their school reports from 3 - NO GREAT EXPECTATIONS

I understand the difference between extreme poverty and low income however!

You are misinterpreting what is being said. Worse parents?

Children who fail to engage with education in a variety of ways ted to be overrepresented in certain groups. That is not saying that all children from these groups fail to engage. And it is a long way from saying they have worse parents.

If this were about primary education I would agree with you, but it isn't. It's about limited pre school provision, and targetting it at groups who are likely to benefit from intervention.

1st birthday - wow! Our nursery only opens the waiting list a year before the children are due to start.

I do understand what you are saying Fridayfeeling.

All state nursery provision has admissions criteria. You may not realise this, but they all do. It doesn't matter if the preschool/nursery is not oversubscribed, but if it is then places are allocated according to the criteria, in order to try and help the children with greatest need.
At the moment there are simply not enough free places for all children, so there is a duty to help those who may need it most, for the sake of children and for the sake of society as a whole.

And how utterly stupid to say that the vast gulf of inequality in education related to class in due to the pre-school admissions many of whom are already slipping behind before they are even TWO. Surely even you don't really believe that absurd statement?

There is a place for all around here - whether it be private nursery, council settings, church led groups etc. So why would low income be prioritised over others?

I just don't agree with it. I have to look for alternatives, and this may well have happened anyway because it was oversubscribed, but giving priority based on income is ridicuous IMO.

Everyone will get a place somewhere (including me - it will be a nightmare and not ideal) .......my point is level the field - discriminating between children at 3 is strange.

But I never completed an application form for either of mine so how can that be true?

Vivace - I do believe it is wrong to label a child as educationally disadvantaged and requiring extra support because of income yes !

And creating that label at 3 contributes to a life of prejudice.

It is sodding levelling the field. The 'field' as it stands is hugely unequal, with the poorest kids at the bottom of it. You may not like that fact, but it is a fact. Children get state funding according to need. There is statutory provision for every child to get a SCHOOL place in a state school, but even then you will be very upset to hear that the playing field is still not level in the way you would like it. Those who need it will even be given 1-1 helpers, special equipment, counselling, behavioural intervention, speech therapy. ooh, the lucky little buggers. And guess, what children in care will have priority over those who are not in care! Jammy little sods.

Have you read anything about the FACTS about the links between child poverty and educational outcomes Fridayfeeling? If not, I suspect you need to educate yourself a little more.

I have read the 'facts' yes, and I understand the logic. But is it helping or is it getting worse - as Cat 64 is indicating?

Does this 'help' really help?

You're simply not listening to what's being said. Parental income is one correlate of achievement. But parental income also correlates with other issues which also influence educational achievement, which are harder (and more intrusive) to assess. It is a broad brush approach.

So yes, under this scheme, some children will be getting the coveted nursery place unnecessarily. But it is more likely to include the children who need the early intervention than if there were no such selection criteria.