Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Social Mobility Bill 2017, TSR Conservative Party






    A

    BILL

    TO

    improve the levels of social mobility in local authorities deemed to have low levels of social mobility.





    BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

    1 Definitions
    (1) Social mobility coldspots are areas in which the levels of social mobility deemed to be low by the Social Mobility Index.
    (2) Free school meals is a statutory benefit available to school-aged children from families who receive other qualifying benefits and who have been through the relevant registration process.

    2 Criteria
    (1) Schools within social mobility coldspots: Tameside, Blackpool, Somerset, Doncaster, Barnsley, and Rutland - are entitled to a 15% increase in per pupil funding as long as:
    a. Their per pupil funding is below the average for the local authority.
    (2) Grammar schools within the local authorities listed, must prioritise at least 25% of their places towards students eligible for free school meals.
    (3) Schools within the local authorities listed that require improvement must have new senior staff appointed by the school governors.
    a. These senior staff must include a new headteacher, a new deputy headteacher, a new assistant headteacher(s), a new pastoral team and a new finance/business manager.

    3 Commencement, short title and extent
    1. This Act shall come into force on 1st September 2017.
    2. This Act may be cited as the Social Mobility Act 2017.
    3. This Act extends to England.

    Notes:

    This bill aims to improve levels of social mobility in the local authorities listed by increasing their per pupil funding by 15% if it is below the local authority average, introducing a 25% quota to Grammar schools in those areas, and also replacing senior staff in schools that require improvement with new senior staff with new ideas so that they can raise standards and teaching. And with this, we should see better attainment for disadvantaged students in these local authorities and better life chances.

    Estimated costs = £55.3m

    If a school fell into the criteria, it would receive a 15% increase in per pupil funding. This was multiplied by the number of students in the school to give the total funding and then it was subtracted by the total funding before it fell into the criteria to give a difference, this would be the cost. This was then added up for all schools in Tameside, Blackpool, Somerset, Doncaster, Barnsley, and Rutland to give £55.3m in costs.

    Sources

    Social mobility index
    Social mobility index data (excel doc)
    Source 2
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    A respectable cause and an admirable bill, aye.

    Inb4 leftists saying "social mobility iz uh myth"
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Throwing money at schools won't fix the problem. Neither will forcing grammar schools to take less able students just to fill up quotas. Nay.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I second Bob's comments, I would have thought the TSR "Tories" above "throw money at the problem, surely it will go away"

    Oh, and then read on to see that it mandates a change of management, which will almost certainly do, well, nothing in its current form.

    And what the **** is an assistant head, other than another way of saying deputy head while making them sound like a made up job for the boys.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    It seems foolish to require new staff appointed to be reappointed but generally aye.
    • Community Assistant
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Aye, very good idea
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Aye
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I see no reason to oppose this - an Aye from me.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BobBobson)
    Throwing money at schools won't fix the problem. Neither will forcing grammar schools to take less able students just to fill up quotas. Nay.
    Well you haven't really explained why it won't help... and it isn't just throwing money at schools, they have to meet the criteria.

    It would help that if the schools that are below the local authority average in these coldspots (which the funding is already low enough, much lower than the South East, particularly Greater London) to have an increase in funding so they can get the quality staff they need and upgrade or build new facilities. Depriving them of more funding certainly won't help schools within these coldspots. However, I do agree funding alone won't help, so this is why there is more than just increasing the funding, including adding a quota and replacement of failing management in failing schools.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Aye, but I agree with the Nigels and Trumps commenting that there are better solutions to education.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Well you haven't really explained why it won't help... and it isn't just throwing money at schools, they have to meet the criteria.

    It would help that if the schools that are below the local authority average in these coldspots (which the funding is already low enough, much lower than the South East, particularly Greater London) to have an increase in funding so they can get the quality staff they need and upgrade or build new facilities. Depriving them of more funding certainly won't help schools within these coldspots. However, I do agree funding alone won't help, so this is why there is more than just increasing the funding, including adding a quota and replacement of failing management in failing schools.
    I'm sorry. Throwing money at poor schools in poor areas won't help. They're gonna go out, get some new textbooks, or some new computers, and then what? Why would standards increase? It's a waste of money. There needs to be a fundamental overhaul of the education system and even society. Which includes competition between schools, and competitve school entry.

    Then what does this bill do? It says that grammar schools basically have to accept less smart people in order to fill up quotas. Effectively diluting grammar schools. It is a complete misunderstanding of what the point of grammar schools are. If the children are not able, they will not benefit from being in a grammar school. It makes no sense. How about we actually expand grammar schools so that there are enough places for people who will benefit from them, rather than diluting them turning them into Grammar Lite schools, where a quarter of the students are just there cost they're poor.

    And then it goes on to just fire all senior staff in poor schools. What will that do? They're just going to hire someone else who is equally as bad.

    This bill is nonsensical from the outset. 3 strikes. You're out. I would've frankly expected more from the tories.
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I second Bob's comments, I would have thought the TSR "Tories" above "throw money at the problem, surely it will go away"

    Oh, and then read on to see that it mandates a change of management, which will almost certainly do, well, nothing in its current form.

    And what the **** is an assistant head, other than another way of saying deputy head while making them sound like a made up job for the boys.
    Assistant head teacher is an established position in our education system. They share many of the same responsibilities as deputies, but not the obligation to replace the head on short-notice and various other little bits and pieces that don't matter here. The point is, they didn't just make it up for this bill.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BobBobson)
    I'm sorry. Throwing money at poor schools in poor areas won't help. They're gonna go out, get some new textbooks, or some new computers, and then what? Why would standards increase? It's a waste of money. There needs to be a fundamental overhaul of the education system and even society. Which includes competition between schools, and competitve school entry.
    So increasing per pupil funding won't help? How would that not help? They could get more teachers with that money and upgrade/build new facilities.

    It's not a waste of money, our education is not a waste of money because if it was, then by your logic, they don't need this money, they don't need the extra teachers to teach their own pupils. Yes, increase the class sizes and make every class mixed ability so that it can improve the standards. Because that will help won't it?...

    Funding is definitely a contributory factor. In London, in many deprived areas the social mobility index in fact points out the social mobility levels are much higher in London than places in the North and some places in the South West, including Somerset. These also happen to be places that are funded very little compared to London... These are the facts.

    Then what does this bill do? It says that grammar schools basically have to accept less smart people in order to fill up quotas. Effectively diluting grammar schools. It is a complete misunderstanding of what the point of grammar schools are. If the children are not able, they will not benefit from being in a grammar school. It makes no sense. How about we actually expand grammar schools so that there are enough places for people who will benefit from them, rather than diluting them turning them into Grammar Lite schools, where a quarter of the students are just there cost they're poor.
    Poor people are less smart? That's quite ludicrous...

    And then it goes on to just fire all senior staff in poor schools. What will that do? They're just going to hire someone else who is equally as bad.
    No they won't. They don't grab a little cloth bag and throw names written on a piece of paper and shove their hand in the bag and pick a name. The school governers appoint them, obviously going through the process of interviewing them and making sure that they will do their job. It's quite disconcerting that you seem to be ignoring the actual process behind this but anyways...
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I'm rather ill so I'm going to bed. If anyone replies, I may not get back to you until tomorrow evening.

    (Original post by BobBobson)
    I'm sorry. Throwing money at poor schools in poor areas won't help. They're gonna go out, get some new textbooks, or some new computers, and then what? Why would standards increase? It's a waste of money. There needs to be a fundamental overhaul of the education system and even society. Which includes competition between schools, and competitve school entry.
    There certainly needs to be a complete overhaul of the system, though we'd differ on the extent. People here routinely fail to understand the key issues affecting performance in most state schools. These range from woeful behaviour management and ridiculously micro-managed teachers who suffer enormously as a result, to huge funding holes due to poor staff retention (as a result of the previous point) and thus agency reliance. Trying to do much else before fixing these things is really missing the point.

    Then what does this bill do? It says that grammar schools basically have to accept less smart people in order to fill up quotas. Effectively diluting grammar schools. It is a complete misunderstanding of what the point of grammar schools are. If the children are not able, they will not benefit from being in a grammar school. It makes no sense. How about we actually expand grammar schools so that there are enough places for people who will benefit from them, rather than diluting them turning them into Grammar Lite schools, where a quarter of the students are just there cost they're poor.
    I attended a very good grammar school; I can categorically say that it was populated by vast numbers of decidedly unimpressive people who often had their parents ability to pay for a tutor to thank for their admittance far more than any greater ability (I would happily argue why 11+ tests are poor indicators of this but the argument has been done to death so anyone reading can google at their leisure). Grammar schools might charitably be called the product of a laudable aim, but they serve absolutely no useful purpose anymore. All they do is perpetuate inequality of opportunity whilst simultaneously doing nothing to promote competition and the theoretical improvement of general standards. They should be unpalatable to people across the spectrum.

    And then it goes on to just fire all senior staff in poor schools. What will that do? They're just going to hire someone else who is equally as bad.

    This bill is nonsensical from the outset. 3 strikes. You're out. I would've frankly expected more from the tories.
    There is an argument to be made for replacing senior leadership, especially in cases where the rest of the staff have completely lost confidence in them. However, I broadly agree with you here - I'm not entirely sure where these teachers who are sufficiently experienced to turn around schools in the orbit of special measures are supposed to magically come from. Especially given the fact that the sector already has a massive shortfall in adequately trained teachers, and that the retention of those teachers is horrendous due to wide-scale mismanagement.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Aye from me.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    2.3 seems wholly unnecessary, but beyond that I have to say I'm liking this rather progressive manifestation of the TSR Conservative Party.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    A respectable cause and an admirable bill, aye.

    Inb4 leftists saying "social mobility iz uh myth"
    'Leftists' believe that in the free market disadvantage people find it immensely difficult to improve their lot in life (if not impossible in a totally free market) and so to ensure social mobility the state must intervene. By your vote, it is clear you agree.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BobBobson)
    Throwing money at schools won't fix the problem. Neither will forcing grammar schools to take less able students just to fill up quotas. Nay.
    So presumably you think the current selection tests are completely accurate measures of ability that are unaffected by the wealth of the family a child comes from?
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    2.3 seems wholly unnecessary, but beyond that I have to say I'm liking this rather progressive manifestation of the TSR Conservative Party.
    It is happening IRL and it works in most cases, schools do end up improving with new management. It wouldn't help a failing school improve if they kept their failing management, so they must be replaced.

    I'm also pretty sure that some people in this house that I have had debates with did mention that if teachers are rubbish they should be sacked, so it would surprise me if they are against sacking rubbish management responsible for the failure of their own school.

    Glad you support it!
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    Assistant head teacher is an established position in our education system. They share many of the same responsibilities as deputies, but not the obligation to replace the head on short-notice and various other little bits and pieces that don't matter here. The point is, they didn't just make it up for this bill.
    Sooo, what exactly is the point of them?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 18, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.