To get annoyed at "catchment area" school places

[Daiso]

Not even sure if the title makes sense however.....
I'd like DS to go to a school which is 2.5 miles away - there are 2 in that area, both with amazing OFSTED reports and great reviews from friends whose DC attend. Both of these outside my catchment area even though its really not that far.
The school just down the road is shocking, friends pulled DC out, not so great OFSTED etc etc.
I can't afford to move to the area where the better schools are as the house prices are astronomical. Just no chance whatsoever of being near.
AIBU to think it's unfair that I won't be able to send DS to that school as I can't afford to live in the area?
I think that everyone should be given a chance to send their DC to a school of their choosing -maybe by first come first served putting name down or by pre school attended (DS will be going to the pre school in the grounds of school I'd like but that makes no difference)

Well, no system will be fair unless schools are allowed to have empty places! Why should your dc get to go to a school 2.5 miles away & others within walking distance lose out cos they didn't get on a waiting list soon enough? Maybe if more parents like you sent your kids to the local school it might improve?

How do you suggest they do it then? By your description everyone would have the two good schools down as first choice anyway, so how do the admissions team decide who gets in?

Have you actually been to see the "bad" school for yourself, or net the head teacher? I have looked round a fair few schools myself and to be honest it's not always that useful to go by ofsted, or what your mates say, alone. You really need to get in and get a proper feel for the place.

Any system will always be unfair to someone, Daiso. For example, what if the postal system discriminated against a first come first served basis?

I am sure you wouldn't be bothered by the system if you did live in the 'right' catchment area. However, you are not prevented from applying, you still can and will be considered if there are still places to fill. You just will not be a priority until other places are filled. a very large worry for all parents and whilst I sympathise, I'm not sur how any system can be completely fair to all.

Well, I'm not sure your ''first come first served' is any fairer really. i

I suppose with any system in place for the more popular schools there will be some children missing out and who would deem it unfair.

YABU.
Parents and the local community need to work together with the school to improve it. If your local school has shocking reviews then get in contact with the school and see how you can make a difference, try and fix the problem. Catchment area to ensure the local community has first access to the school should be top of any admittance criteria.

Well said redhelenb

well what do you mean by stating that the school down the road is 'shocking' exactly?
do you mean that poor people send their children there?

No, everyone should go to the nearest school, and, heres the catch, all schools should be of an acceptable standard.
It is bonkers because of moving catchment areas, and different criteria hit (sibling and church) three houses in a row, all sending a child to school in Sept, all putting down the same preferences, all get different schools. How does that promote community adhesion?

YABU, it makes more sense for the kids who can walk to the school to have priority.

First come first served or pre-school attendance is much less fair than distance.

Every child should get a place at their nearest school, and every school should be good.

A first come first served system, or one that was linked to pre school would be more unfair than the catchment system, you'd just prefer it because it's the one that you could work to your advantage.

Unless we are going to fund schools to have empty places, there will never be true choice in the state system.

If you think you are realistically only going to get a place at the school you don't like, you'd be better off trying to help improve the school.

Remember that if they haven't got a good OFSTED, they will be being monitored and they will be given the funding they need to improve. They are likely to be doing everything they can, and the only thing they can't change is their intake.

It always makes me laugh when I hear people complain about fee paying schools when at the same time they will pay more to live in a 'good' catchment area. Both are exactly the same imo.

Yes, maybe if more parents worked to improve their local schools they would get better. However, who is willing to use their child's education to test the theory if they don't have to? Which one of you would send your child to the school with the worst reputation in order to improve it for everyone? No? Thought not.

YANBU OP. The fact is that money talks. Whether you pay private school fees or through the nose for a house in the best catchment.

Don't think you are unreasonable to want your children to go to the better school - most parents do - that is why they full!

I think people are a bit unrealistic to suggest you should be selfishly working the local school to improve things. We live between two secondary schools - one has the best State school results in the city, and the other is one of the worst in the country. In the poor performing school, not a single pupil left to go onto Higher Ed.

I was at the low performing school the other day (there is a community pool on the site and we were in for a swim) and there was loads of posters saying positive stuff - apparently it is the "most improved state school in 2012" - it sounds great, but all that means is - it started off really, really AWFUL - and now it is not quite at the bottom but still TERRIBLE.

As a community minded person, I might be prepared to volunteer or to sit on a committee etc or make some other contribution - but no way would I subject a child of mine to an education there. It simply wouldn't be fair on them. However, no point in raging against the catchment system- it's unlikely to change on your say so. Could you not rent somewhere (even somewhere tiny) in the appropriate catchement. Once the children are in - presumably that's it - and you could move out of catchment again? Or have you considered a move to an entirely different area altogether?

yes - tend to agree with you tailtwister

Well seems I ABU.
I'm all for improving schools but this particular school, I worked at about 6 years ago and from all accounts hasn't changed at all. Bullying seems to have a blind eye turned to it which is important I feel in a school to be stamped out immediately.
I do understand what you are saying but I'm just a bit peeved that I don't get a equal chance of a school of my choice. If it was names out of a hat then I wouldn't be so bothered it seems we're penalised for not being able to afford to live by the better schools (not just "us" everyone across the country)

Another YABU.

What does the parent who cannot afford transport for their child in the morning do if their local school (which happens to be a good one) is filled with children from miles away, who's parents DO have the means to get their kids into any school they wish by 9am?

Or by lottery?
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6403017.stm

YABU. I'm a big supporter for local schools. Children shouldn't worry that their local school places been taken by people from outside. Fair enough if there are spaces left. (It's a different problem when the local schools aren't big enough for the local population, like in London). So you think everyone should just be able to pick whatever schools they like, and everyone should have equal chance? How far do you want to take this logic? My parents live in Hong Kong and this is what they have now

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-23127940

The logical conclusion to what you are saving. Local schools near the border to China are obliged to offer places to kids from over the border if they apply. Equal rights to education is what the court ruling says in 2001. What kind of nightmare it is to parents if everyone has to go all over the city to take their kids to school, just because you have no priority at your local one.

It's not that YABU to be peeved, it's perfectly reasonable to be annoyed that the only school you have access to is not a good one.

But the problem isn't the catchment system. I might get flamed for this, but I think the problem is other parents. Every school has the potential to be great if the majority of the parents using it contribute to it, support it, and pass a good attitude to learning on to their children.

I don't think it's true to say that it's all about money. In my area there are a few good schools, and they all serve families who live in very expensive houses, have professional jobs, live in caravans or on council estates. There is a lot of socio economic diversity, even with a catchment system.

Why should other parents not be able to send their children to their local school? If it's that important to you, then you'll need to move.

YANBU catchment areas are a way of entrenching both privilege and disadvantage. They are only supported by those with pockets deep enough to buy into the good areas and those who want to make sure that 'undesireables' are prevented from going to school with their own kids.

IME the 'nice' schools perceived as desirable by the middle classes often try far less hard than for example estate schools and have rather a smug and complacent attitude, esp. regarding bullying and the quality of teaching.

What bugs me more is that in our area, the only school was built way too small for the community it serves, so a small wedge do get to the local school, and the rest of the estate have to drive to go to surrounding areas. Because the local schools are "good" the area doesn't have the premium housing costs of some other areas of town.

We moved house a couple of years ago and unknowingly moved into catchment. The irony is that as the crow flies there are now more houses between us and the school than when we didn't live in catchment.

The need for day care means a lot of children can't go to the pre-school for the school they will go to. It would be easier for me at present to send DS1 to the pre-school at the school as it's nearer and cheaper than his nursery, but as I should be RTW before he starts school, I have to factor long term childcare in, and to take him out of nursery and then send him back when I get work then start school would be very disruptive. The security of knowing what catchement we are in rather than paying games on school allocations is much better for the children of two working parents.

In an ideal world, any local school should be good enough to go to. Because some people have more means to travel, move, pay private, it causes more polarisation of quality of education. Sadly the world isn't ideal and people naturally do what they can to maximise their children's opportunities.

I can see what you're saying russian, but don't you think that better off parents will simply be able to afford drive/use taxi's to get their kids to the school of their choice if it's an open policy anyway?

While those less well off families are stuck in their own area. Physically. When my kids were little i could only afford 'Shank's Pony' - ie walking to school. Our local school was a good one. The surrounding are was a mixture of well off/not so well off. If my local had been filled with kids from other towns how would mine have been educated?

The problem lies with the awful discrepancy between schools. Throwing open catchment areas wouldn't help that IMO.

Just to add, if Gov suddenly announced that the catchement system was unfair and was being abandoned in favor of a lottery - I would be marching - like lots of other middle class parents!

People have now paid a premium for their houses, and are mortgaged to the hilt - don't think they would be impressed to find they are suddenly massively devalued :(