Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Secondary education

Connect with other parents whose children are starting secondary school on this forum.

Original poster

DfE finds that higher parental incomes buy better educational outcomes

425 replies

noblegiraffe · 12/04/2017 18:30

In a piece of research that will surprise no one, it turns out that children of wealthier parents do better at school.

However, while it is obvious that PP students and especially FSM pupils perform particularly badly, pupils from below-median-income families perform lower than, but more in line with children from wealthier families than with PP pupils.

What the DfE really want to know in this consultation, however, is whether they should refer to below-median-income families who don't qualify for PP as 'Ordinary Working Families'.

consult.education.gov.uk/school-leadership-analysis-unit/analysing-family-circumstances-and-education-1/

Good to know that they are spending their time and effort focusing on the key issues in education at the moment.

DfE finds that higher parental incomes buy better educational outcomes
DfE finds that higher parental incomes buy better educational outcomes
OP posts:
claritytobeclear · 26/04/2017 14:15

So. just to clarify, you want to go back to where there was no choice and you automatically went to your nearest school?

Yes, Badbad.

You want to scrap all selection, i.e. no faith schools, no grammars, no schools with specialisms (such as for sports, Maths, languages, science, etc.).

Yes, I would scrap all selection.

there can be no other way to offer every child the same opportunity, other than to have a massive network of comps all doing the same thing.

There might be slight differences, based on demand, from the local community, on what individual schools offered. However this would change naturally as communities changed. An influx of new people, with new, differing needs, would mean the school had to change what they offered to suit. The schools, being truly comprehensive would have be responsive and dynamic to meet any changing needs.

That sounds like a massive U turn after years of the mantra being "choice" where you had the freedom to send your child to a school specialising in Maths if they were gifted in Maths or sports if they were a talented sports-person.

Is that really what you mean?

YES!!! No more pockets of individual expertise. No postcode lottery. Responsive dynamic comprehensive education.

Original poster
noblegiraffe · 26/04/2017 14:16

But aren't we constantly bombarded by people saying that outcomes can be just as good in state schools where there isn't a grammar nearby?

Er, no?

OP posts:
Badbadbunny · 26/04/2017 14:39

No postcode lottery.

But surely house prices would rise in areas within a "good" school catchment, so you still have the situation where richer people can move into an area to benefit from a better school? And people with money in a deprived area will move out leaving a vacuum to be filled by more deprived people moving in to where property prices are cheaper.

But otherwise, for the record, I'm also 100% in favour of ZERO selection and for kids to go to their nearest school with no choices etc. What has always bugged me are the parents who decry the grammars but then insist on faith schools or specialist schools still being allowed - i.e. so that they can have the selection they want but don't want anyone else to have it! If it were truly possible to achieve a level playing field, then count me in!

Badbadbunny · 26/04/2017 14:43

By the way, my closest school is currently pretty average, hence why it's not popular, but that's because most people send their kids to one of 9 other schools in nearby towns leaving it in a vacuum filled with a couple of pretty big council/social housing estates. If everyone in the catchment of my closest school (including some leafy villages) sent their kids there, (it would need a lot of expansion!) then it would have a much higher average level of achievement and positive outcomes and jump up the league tables (assuming teaching standards were up to it). Trouble is no-one wants to risk it and see their child under-perform. Without ANY choice, the landscape would be completely different.

claritytobeclear · 26/04/2017 14:45

But surely house prices would rise in areas within a "good" school catchment, so you still have the situation where richer people can move into an area to benefit from a better school? And people with money in a deprived area will move out leaving a vacuum to be filled by more deprived people moving in to where property prices are cheaper.

If the schools were all genuinely comprehensive, responsive and dynamic at meeting individual children's educational needs, then all the schools would be 'good'. Schools would not be a reason for moving.

But otherwise, for the record, I'm also 100% in favour of ZERO selection and for kids to go to their nearest school with no choices etc. What has always bugged me are the parents who decry the grammars but then insist on faith schools or specialist schools still being allowed - i.e. so that they can have the selection they want but don't want anyone else to have it! If it were truly possible to achieve a level playing field, then count me in!

Yes, any type of selection is still selection.

claritytobeclear · 26/04/2017 14:50

I always wanted to send my DC to local schools and have. I think I would have actually moved rather than have them having to travel great distances. If I was not happy for my child to go to school in a place near where they lived, I would not really be happy living there. I just think going to a local school helps them to be able to socialise more independently and be involved in the local community.

BertrandRussell · 26/04/2017 14:50

In My Glorious Reign school places will be allocated by a combination of fair banding and lottery.

Obviously I need to work out the details of the system, but it will basically be just that.

claritytobeclear · 26/04/2017 14:54

Bertrand, but that means children would inevitably have to travel, even if there is a school on their doorstep, if I am understanding you correctly. This costs and does not help local social cohesion.

BertrandRussell · 26/04/2017 14:57

Yes, I know. But I can't think of another way to avoid the post code lottery.

claritytobeclear · 26/04/2017 14:59

What about just good schools that genuinely meet the educational needs of their students, Bertrand?

claritytobeclear · 26/04/2017 15:03

I'd rather spend money on actual education than having to transport children miles and miles to school.

Original poster
noblegiraffe · 26/04/2017 15:06

You could lessen the postcode lottery by not publishing raw results, and by Ofsted stopping acting like restaurant critics awarding Michelin stars.

OP posts:
claritytobeclear · 26/04/2017 15:09

You could lessen the postcode lottery by not publishing raw results, and by Ofsted stopping acting like restaurant critics awarding Michelin stars

noble, whilst some educational professionals might like this, I think, complete transparency and rigorous evaluation, is the only way to ensure schools are actually good at meeting their students need and narrowing any attainment gaps.

claritytobeclear · 26/04/2017 15:12

I mean what other profession is there, that is not held accountable? Public servants are publicly accountable.

BertrandRussell · 26/04/2017 15:18

"What about just good schools that genuinely meet the educational needs of their students, Bertrand?" In an ideal world. But parents will always seek out the real or imagined "better" school. And try to move closer to that school.

user7214743615 · 26/04/2017 15:19

Can you name another profession that is directly comparable to educating children? I.e. where the results depend not just on the performance of the professional but also on the actions of children and their parents.

claritytobeclear · 26/04/2017 15:26

Bertrand, ha! In my imagination, I was talking about the ideal scenario. I wish big!

user, yes, in health, patient's lifestyle can have an influence over successful treatments.

BoboChic · 26/04/2017 15:28

"I'd rather spend money on actual education than having to transport children miles and miles to school."

This.

BertrandRussell · 26/04/2017 15:34

"user, yes, in health, patient's lifestyle can have an influence over successful treatments."

But does it reflect on the HCPs that their patients have crap lifestyles?As things stand now, schools like my ds's, with a very disadvantaged and low ability cohort find it much harder to get "outstanding" for example, because they have fewer kids who will make the reauired progress. And under Progress 8, moving a kid from A to A* gets more "points" than moving one from C to D.......

user7214743615 · 26/04/2017 15:42

yes, in health, patient's lifestyle can have an influence over successful treatments.

And so would those working in health welcome an assessment system for their performance which looked only at the outcome of the treatments? (This is how you are suggesting that teachers should be measured.)

claritytobeclear · 26/04/2017 15:43

Bertrand, I think it does reflect on HCPs. The outcomes are worse and it contributes to the over-prescription of medication that does the patient no good long term.

If a school was truly focussed on identifying that low achieving cohort's needs and tailored towards meeting them, with the proper evaluation routines, then they are more likely to show good results for progress. Especially if they use PP effectively, along with any additional AWPU and out aside a proper proportion of funding aside for additional needs. And surely moving from C to D means there is a regression in attainment??

claritytobeclear · 26/04/2017 15:47

And so would those working in health welcome an assessment system for their performance which looked only at the outcome of the treatments? (This is how you are suggesting that teachers should be measured.)

Have you read the Pupil Premium Review material, I posted, earlier on in the thread? What particular aspect of it do you object to? I would suggest that it is imperative to do this type of evaluation as part of any professional practice, user.

BertrandRussell · 26/04/2017 15:54

"And surely moving from C to D means there is a regression in attainment??"

Sorry-typo. A-A* carries more weight than D-C.

claritytobeclear · 26/04/2017 15:55

Ah, that makes more sense Bertrand. Unless the jump is considered higher, I don't know why that is.

Swipe left for the next trending thread