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?

well presumable the academics who are putting foward the theory about the lower IQ beleive they are backing it up with evidence (=facts?) otherwise they would not get published. I can not comment on its validity as I have not read it. Have you? Have you done peer-reviewd research for the 'facts' you refer to Vivace, or is just that great irrefutable 'gut feeling' or 'instinct' ?

Yes, the gap is slightly narrowing for the first time in decades. It is hard to combat this sort of inequality in society, but if helping our society to become more just and equal, and to help our children have fairer chance in life isn't the job of the state, then I don't really know what is.
A poor background doesn't come out of nowhere. There is a strong correlation between low educational achievement and poverty. So the parents of poor children tend to be less educated, and there is a huge correlation between the mother's education and the future educational outcome for her children. This is just one of the complex ways in which being poor and missing out educationally are linked. Poverty is a very good marker for educational disadvantage.
I think it totally twists the meaning of prejudice to claim it is "prejudiced" or "discriminatory" for the state to give the most help to those most in need.

Our borough guarantees every three-year-old a nursery place. so how could any school justify selecting certain pupils over others based on income?

Er, because low income is a strong marker for educational disadvantage.
Schools have (slightly different) selection criteria too, based on the most disadvantaged children having priority (those in care, those with special educational or health needs etc) and yet every child is guaranteed a school place. They aren't contradictory.

But, if every child has a guaranteed place somewhere, how can a school argue that a low income child is more deserving of a place than one with a sibling already in the school?

Because that child is more likely to need that place in order to have a fairer chance in the rest of its life.

And possibly because if they get the place that their parents want, they are more likely to use it?

A strong marker means nothing on an individual level. A correlation also only indicates a relationship and is not a causal effect.

Statistics such as these are so complex that they must be examined beyond face value.

I just think income based priority places for a free place which all can have is ludicrous. And I don't think ultimately it is helping anyone - and is probably to the detriment of those being 'helped' in the long run.

And because it is a STATE place, with statutory duty to have admissions criteria. Private nurseries, while not allowed to discriminate against children with disabilities, do not have the same criteria. People who are poor can tend (TEND!) to be less able to seek out good provision for their children, which is not the children's fault. This is to help those who need it most, which is usually seen as a good thing.

Given time and resources, a broad brush approach is what is workable. Is there really time to have an in depth analysis of each child's situation?

And I'm not sure about your point about causal relationship versus correlatiob. Does it matter whether it's causal or not in this instance? Just whether it is useful in helping to identify children are are likely to underachieve.

I do have to go now ( you will be happy to hear) but good to have a discussion on it all.

Of course even the strongest correlation does not mean that it applies equally to every single individual! Some people smoke 80 a day and die in their beds at 80. But it doesn't mean that cigarettes don't cause lung cancer. Of course the statistics are examined. And examined, and researched, and examined again and new studies are done. It is a massive area of concern and research. And the result is, it is irrefutable that statistically poorer children do less well for the whole of the rest of their lives than those from better off backgrounds.
I find it ludicrous and even offensive hat you think that giving poorer children access to state nursery places is not only bad (because your kid didn't get exactly teh place you wanted) and is even somehow harming them. You have zero evidence for what you are saying you know. You are just cross because some poorer kid may have a place that you assumed was your kid's by right.

Vivace, you're completely missing my point so I give up.

Families on income support by definition have fewr options open to them - they probably will not be able to afford private nurseries or to travel to ones further away. Seems fine to me.

Cat - actually if you read what I wrote I simply wrote that you are say things are getting worse in terms of people not working and passing it through the generations. My question therefore was whether the 'help' was working or benefiting these people or whether it just stigmatises them.

It's ok though I know your answer.

Yes, because if a child goes to a perfectly ordinary nursery at three that really 'stigmatises' them, doesn't it?
It's like helping children with special needs or children in care. You should just let them sink, because then they'll do much better.

Looking at the criteria list for priority, I think number iv) looks pretty dodgy actually

Well if you are happy to be labelled by middle class aceademics and civil servants as more needy that is fine I suppose.

(You will note all my discussion has been about income based judgments - I have never mentioned special needs or children in care - that is only something you have repeatedly mentioned to skew the argument)

Friday Feeling you seem to be the only one banging on about 'crap parents', I've read that from you about five times and only a third of the way through this thread.

And breath.

I'll now go finish reading.

What if a family receives benefit for only a few weeks or even months though?

Not all benfit recipients are socially or educationally disadvantaged.

(vi) the family is in receipt of ;

• income support/income-based job seeker?s allowance;
• working tax credit

Surely a huge majority of families recieve working tax credit?

I wondered about that too TDWP

FF-Have you taken any of the arguments from vivace et al on board?
They make sense to me. We live in a society, and have a shared responsibility for all children within it.
Why are you so resentful of others being labelled more in need than you?
I shopuldn't think the poorer parents gicve ahoot what middle class academics think of them - they just need a free nursery place.