B1114 - Social Mobility Bill 2017 (Third reading) Watch

This discussion is closed.
adam9317
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
Social Mobility Bill 2017, TSR Conservative & Unionist 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 worst 6 social mobility coldspots 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 worst performing 20% of local authorities for social mobility, must prioritise their places by a percentage that is at least half the local authority average for students eligible for free school meals to students that are eligible for free school meals.

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 and introducing a quota to Grammar schools in those areas. 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.

Anyone a bit baffled by 2.2, here is an example to help understand. Buckinghamshire has 17.4% of students eligible for FSM. If Buckinghamshire happened to be within the worst performing 20%, the grammar schools in Buckinghamshire must have a quota that is at least half of the local authority average for students eligible for FSM. This means that grammar schools in Buckinghamshire would only have to prioritise at least 8.7% of their places towards students eligible for FSM (because 17.4/2 = 8.7).

Sources

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

Amendments for third reading:

2.1 - changed to worst 6 instead of listed local authorities to give flexibility to the bill.
2.2 - changed quota to at least half of the local authority average because some local authorities have less than 25% of students eligible for FSM, therefore it wouldn't be fair for a grammar school to have to take more than the local authority average.
- the areas that will have to follow the quota has been changed to the worst performing 20% of local authorities.
0
LifeIsFine
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
You implemented Ray's change for the worst six coldspots, and so I will vote aye
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
Aye.
0
Basiil17
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
Still Aye
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
No, I do not support the discrimination in section 2(2) because there will be pupils left out when they have the ability to attend a grammar school.
0
CoffeeAndPolitics
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
Aye - As for the reasons I've made in the second reading. I'm delighted to see Ray's suggestions implemented into this bill and I'm sure that will convince other lefties to vote in favour of your social mobility bill CoffeeGeek.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
Aye.
0
username2718212
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
Aye...
0
Tanqueray91
  • Study Helper
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
Absolutely, a great Bill which I believe will strongly help the education in this country which I think should absolutely be a priority!
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
(Original post by CoffeeAndPolitics)
Aye - As for the reasons I've made in the second reading. I'm delighted to see Ray's suggestions implemented into this bill and I'm sure that will convince other lefties to vote in favour of your social mobility bill CoffeeGeek.
Indeed, a good example of how the government and the opposition can find common ground to achieve our common goals - something that was highlighted by the government upon its formation. The new Conservative Deputy appears to be doing themselves credit.
0
adam9317
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#11
Division! Clear the lobbies!
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Did you vote in the 2019 general election?

Yes (353)
46.26%
No (81)
10.62%
I'm not old enough (329)
43.12%

Watched Threads

View All