Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Landmark school admissions ruling for Haringey mother.
Pupils cannot be denied a place in their preferred schools simply because they are full, a court ruled yesterday.
The landmark High Court judgement is likely to give hope to thousands of families who challenge the schools they are allocated each year before independent appeals panels (IAPs).
In the case, the mother of an 11-year-old girl took her battle to London's High Court after an appeal panel rejected her choice of secondary school because it was full.
The mother - referred to as M - wanted her daughter (MC) to be educated away from her London inner city neighbourhood and its problems of crime and bullying. The mother had applied to a popular and oversubscribed school but she was rejected by Haringey's schools council admissions service.
The ruling means M and her daughter are entitled to a fresh hearing before the IPA.
This was the first High Court case to examine provisions of the new schools admissions appeal code 2009. It will provide guidelines for parents and education authorities in the future.
More on the ruling here.
The landmark High Court judgement is likely to give hope to thousands of families who challenge the schools they are allocated each year before independent appeals panels (IAPs).
In the case, the mother of an 11-year-old girl took her battle to London's High Court after an appeal panel rejected her choice of secondary school because it was full.
The mother - referred to as M - wanted her daughter (MC) to be educated away from her London inner city neighbourhood and its problems of crime and bullying. The mother had applied to a popular and oversubscribed school but she was rejected by Haringey's schools council admissions service.
The ruling means M and her daughter are entitled to a fresh hearing before the IPA.
This was the first High Court case to examine provisions of the new schools admissions appeal code 2009. It will provide guidelines for parents and education authorities in the future.
More on the ruling here.
Tags for Forum Posts: haringey heartlands, school funding
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
A spell of military service.
Then they will be ready for selling trainers in JJB Sports.
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
Well, maybe not military service unless they really, really want to spend a couple of years learning how to shine their shoes until they can see their face in them and iron trousers with a knife edge crease (both skills my father acquired along with the ability to get planes flying again after they got broken) but some requirement that they enter training/study until 18.
I would start with a massive expansion of apprenticeships that can and do lead to university level qualifications; more money spent on encouraging young people to enter further education and access courses; masses more career guidance than they and their parents get now beginning before they make choices about what to study at 14 and not in the form of a 1 hour interview in the last three months of their formal schooling without a parent present.
Picking up on Eddie's points, there has to be an acknowledgement and understanding of the 'first generation' fears discussed above. Debt, for example, is something that middle class people accept in the form of mortgages, over drafts etc . Debt for working class people is about getting by and avoiding falling into the clutches of loan sharks. Hearing figures like 20 grand of debt after graduating is a terrifying prospect for working class children. Yes, there is always help but it requires hoops.
That period between 16-18 is when many young people really blossom and mature. We require them to make commitments way too early in this country so I would suggest a more European style system of qualifications with formal exams delayed until 18.
Trust me, a rude little monster at 15 who drives his teachers to distraction can become a charming and skilled chef by 18 given the right course, encouragement and self-belief.
Our system is driven too much by class, out-moded tradition and pandering to demands of the few. Anyone who tries to reform it, is decried as bringing about the end of civilisation as we know it but lets face it, the system that 'allowed' me an education only benefited the top 10 percent and graciously pushed a few working class up the ladder leaving their mates far behind.
Let's look at where children and young people are happiest in the world and see what they do...I bet it isn't a world dominated by parental fussing about catchment areas, high courts having to rule on school places, league tables and endless testing.
-
-
Having polished shoes and a nicely ironed shirt is a great start to an interview, don't knock it.
I think the army would be a better place to learn a trade than from some dodgy tradesman.
We have facebook, well working class kids have bebo, you never leave your mates behind anymore.
-
-
Certainly not knocking it.
The drawback to your argument is that the armed services themselves do not want to be responsible for knocking people into shape and have reacted less than warmly every time some opportunistic little politician suggests it.
If young people wish to join the armed services there is nothing stopping them but the form of Modern National service you are advocating would be costly and the money would be far better spent on the further education sector.
Apprenticeships do not and would not be with dodgy tradesmen. They would have to be capable of teaching and accrediting (testing if you like) young people.
The expansion of technical schools such as you see in Europe should mean that the young people would have access to qualified teaching, work placements with accredited companies like the utility companies for example and still be able to continue with a little basic stuff like maths, English, languages etc. Young men and women need to enter workplaces and be mentored by older workers to enable them to take on the social aspects of work such as facing challenges, dealing with responsibility etc.
If they decide that they would prefer to study engineering at university rather than go to work for BT, then the tech schools would enable them by providing recognised qualifications and partnerships with the best technical universities.
It is true that social media will allow kids to stay in touch in the future but does not deal with the initial fear of stepping out of their narrow comfort zones and talking on more challenging roles.
It is a huge step out of your family and friends network into the looser networks of college and work. Middle class families do it much more and pass that facility onto their off spring. Working class families tend to rely on family and neighbour networks more and find it harder to go beyond them. I only have to look at my own family to see proof of that. -
-
Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on
-
Ah, bebo! facebook! That's what I missed out on in the 1950's. Why did nobody tell me? And just about then they abolished National Service. No wonder I'm such a scruffy old recluse.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Malcolm on
-
You're avoiding the point that the trade you learn in the armed services is killing people.
Do we really want more trained killers around? -
-
-
Hear hear!
I'd summarise as kids by and large do what's expected of them, be it being a doctor or being on the dole.
Love the point about immigrants - I've long held that immigration is excellent for the receiving country, since we're getting people with (by definition) get up and go.
-
-
Just because the armed forces don't "react warmly" to the idea does not mean it is a bad one, it just means that they are snobs.
Why are these "working class" kids so insecure? Could it be that their parents are insecure and pass this onto them?
I disagree that the money would be better spent in the education sector.
-
-
Of course its not because they are 'snobs'.
They are struggling to pay now for the equipment they need etc. They would have to find people to teach these thousands of kids looking for a trade, where are they going to come from? They would have to house them, feed them, clothe them. They don't have the money to do this and if they are going to spend money given to them by government, it'll be on front line operations not in teaching a load of 16 year olds how to march in a straight line.
I'm with the armed services on this. They should not be expected to 'cure the ills' caused by poverty, under investment and unemployment. That is not their job. Many servicemen and women leave the army now and struggle to work and have housing and health problems.How is it going to help to have thousands of kids join them after a couple of years, if the jobs, housing and support isn't there for regular personnel?
If you are going to put that much time, money and effort into making everyone do National Service, you may as well spend that time, money and energy into providing a world class education for 16+ kids and let those that want to join the Army.
Despite what people might say, more money does help schools do better. I saw massive injections of cash into the education sector which sent up teacher numbers, upgraded facilities etc and it did help raise achievement. Teach kids in a leaky classroom with old textbooks when they know the kids up the road have nice shiny facilities and brand new equipment and they are not going to react well.
As to your other point about insecurity, the short answer is yes. It is passed on, generations of worklessness, coupled with educational under achievement in a family is going to affect how you view the world, even if your parents are loving and try hard. It's going to make it just that bit harder for you to get to the top.
In many cases, parents are not unwilling to help their children but low levels of literacy, lack of connections, low confidence mean they feel they can't even begin to help their kids. They want more for them but they don't always have the means to provide it.
John, I looked after 11-16 year olds for 15 odd years in all in so called 'tough' schools. Do not underestimate the power of fear. Some of those 6 ft lads and lasses in their "designer" trainers with their 'F You' attitude emerging from under their big old hoods were some of the most frightened children of all. Once I realised that, I started to be of help to them as a teacher.
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
@ John
I'm with Liz on this. The Services have enough to do as it is with fighting Blair's wars with Brown's cheeseparing resources. Didn't you see that there is so little money available for Defence that TA training is to be suspended for 6 months? If we can't afford to train our servicemen. how can you expect them to make up the deficiencies in education and social attitudes among our youth ? Another task for which the Services are not trained to undertake.
Don't forget too, that the main result of National Service was to teach a good proportion of young men to drink too much, skive and dodge responsibility.
-
Permalink Reply by StephenBln on
-
Oh come on, there's always plenty of money to spend on the royal family (i.e. trooping the colour and all the other nonsense). Military Service isn't right for everyone, but is often good for those who don't want academic careers..
and there should/could be a civil service.. putting something back into your community..
They shouldn't stand alone, but be part of a system of university, apprenticeships, military and civil service. Our government levies fines on companies that don't offer apprenticeship places every year- the number of places depend on the size of the company.. but all with over 12 employees have to take on apprentices.. and our school system splits kids who go on to trade schools or do 'an Abitur' or baccalaureate.
Liz's 'creased trousers and shiny shoes' have more to do with the British Class system at work in the army than with a modern western European Army or society..
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
