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)

Not disrespectful at all. I believe that other than facts about all religions the rest should be done by parents.

If parents want to bring their child up in a religion then they should teach their child about their (as in the parents) faith, not expect a school to do it. IMO.

The idea that a school can prepare a whole class of children for a first communion at the same age always confuses me - surely all children develop differently and it should be about when they are ready and want to do it not when school says they should. Seeing children doing it just for the party is wrong IMO.

(I know most people of faith don't see it the same way but hey ho we are all different)

daftdame - that is not what I said at all. Of course ALL children have potential, but it is easier to "come up to the mark" as a school if you have the bulk of children with the sort of parents who are interested in them doing well, ensure they attend, give them breakfast & ensure they get to bed at a reasonable hour etc etc. And I have taught in all sorts of schools.

YANBU to be peeved at the school your DS will have to go to. However, as everyone has said, I don't think that there is really any alternative, catchment is really the fairest way for all the reasons mentioned above.

I don't think that parents think that their child is too clever/sensitive/speshul to go to a certain school. I think that they believe that their child has one shot at an education and they don't want to gamble that by sending their child to a rubbish school which perhaps they can singlehandedly improve by going in and reading/baking once in a while or joining the PTA. People are selfish when it comes to the education of their child, because they want to give their child the best opportunities that they can and school is not a rehearsal. If that means moving or going to church to get into a faith school or whatever, lots of parents would do it if they can.

I don't think many parents would think 'I can afford to move to the catchment area of a really great school, but I am not going to move I am going to stay here and send my child to the nearest crap school that is in special measures and I have heard terrible things about, because otherwise its not fair on the kids that have to attend it.'

RedHelenB I'm pleased you have qualified your remarks.

However the 'home background' element is often based on quite 'fuzzy' information and can end up as 'blame the parents' type thinking if not careful.

People with a lack of money are all too often assumed to have 'underprivileged' backgrounds when we all know abuse and traumatic situations can happen to people from all sorts of backgrounds. Also you don't necessarily have to have a lot of money to be a very good parent.

The only fair stem is that everyone sends their kids to their nearest school. End of.

Sirzy totally agree with your post.

Nowhere have |i mentioned that you need to have money to be a good parent! But iit is very simplistic thinking to think that rubbish OFSTED = rubbish teaching, no matter what the gov would like us to believe! And if kids come to school late, not properly dressed or equipped or even fed then they are starting on the back foot. It's like comparing a surgeon who does routine teeth withdrawals to a brain surgeon, it's not like for like!

idiot55

The only fair stem is that everyone sends their kids to their nearest school. End of.

You seem to have confused the word 'fair' with the term 'meddling socialist'

RedHelenB, I'm sorry I don't think that I'm naive. However, i do think that youve put words into my mouth which i have not said. There are many ways that schools perform well (or don't perform well). I am completely aware that there are amazing teachers who work at schools with children from low-achieving families. I made no comment about SATs results (or any other results).

Schools are also measured by 'value-added' therefore allowing schools to show the progress that their students have made. Many schools in the poorest areas do extremely well in this way of measuring. They may not necessarily achieve the highest SATS results or GCSE results, however the progress the students make from previous SATS results, and taking into account socio-economic conditions could very well show that they are NOT under-performing.

Schools can also be under-achieving in the spiritual, moral, social and cultural education provided. I know of parents who have chosen not to send their child to the very 'successful' state school, because the SMSC programme was lacking. OFSTED are very interested in this.

YABU
I am baffled that you could think otherwise. Did you not plan for this, and I mean YEARS ago?
Of course catchment is one the best ways of doing it.
To suggest otherwise is simply ridiculous.

Red I never said you did.

The views are ingrained somewhat in our society though. High incidence of FSM uptake is used as being indicative of high incidence of Additional Needs, when you look at how school funding is allocated at a Local Authority Level.

It is not a great leap to say that there is some degree of prejudice out there. Especially when statements such as 'quality of raw materials' are on this thread used in connection with intake. A child is an individual distinct from their parents or background, it is a much how people react to a situation as the situation itself. So of course every child has potential.

Also parents who are described as 'pushy' can be just as much of a problem for teachers.

As a teacher you have to face facts that the quality of teaching is a major factor in educational achievement.

"
Schools can also be under-achieving in the spiritual, moral, social and cultural education provided. I know of parents who have chosen not to send their child to the very 'successful' state school, because the SMSC programme was lacking. OFSTED are very interested in this."

OFSTED don't give a shit about spiritual, moral or social welbeing. Under the new OFSTED regime progress is important and school reaching certain base line levels.

"The only fair stem is that everyone sends their kids to their nearest school. End of."

The academies system and secondary schools having specialist status means that different secondary school can have different styles of teaching and curriculum. For example one school near me uses completely mixed ablity teaching except for maths in year 7, another school puts children into four different pathways based on SATs results, one school does not allow any child who has got less than a level 4 in English to study a modern foreign language.

I feel it is a nonsense having specialist schools if children with particular talents cannot access them. However it is impossible to tell if a child has an aptitude for languages, science, business studies, music or performing arts at the age of eleven.

I would like to have a system where vocationally minded children can choose to change school at the end of year 8. Learning a trade should not been seen as an option for those who aren't capable of GCSEs. Prehaps less able children could spend an extra year or two in keystage 3 and then go on to an academic or vocationa diploma.

Prehaps the specialist schools could then select on aptitude in their their specialism.

YANBU in wanting the same opportunities afforded to you as those that are rich/wealthy/comfortable have. Lets face it, the 'gold dust' state schools are often populated with children from comfortable backgrounds and that is why they are 'outstanding'- all that 'support' and 'pushing' helps considerably.

Of course teaching is a major factor in educational achievement, but without a doubt, parents have a bigger influence over their children than teachers are ever going to have.

Children are individuals, but they are not completely distinct from their parents. If their parents don't value and support their education, they are doing to have a much tougher job trying to achieve the same SATs results as a child whose parent reads with them every night and extends their learning as much as possible at home. That's just common sense.

I don't believe any school has teachers that are all of exactly the same quality, high or low. Teachers can only work with what they have, and like it or not, parenting does make a huge difference to what primary age children can achieve.

It's easy to say all schools should be great, and indeed they should be. But until all parents are great, or at least the overwhelming majority are, it's just not going to happen.

If a child is brought up well and guided well at home then it shouldn't matter what school they go to. Cream usually floats to the top.

I disagree. An intelligent child will not just "float to the top", unless they receive good-quality teaching, in an environment which values achievement. It's harder to do when teaching is poor, or the work isn't differentiated for the more able, or you're bullied by your peers if you mention you've done some work or are actually interested in lessons.

Whilst we are all waiting for this Utopian vision to come to fruition, are people that were unable to purchase the £500 - million pounds property by the school of their choice, expected to use their children as a 'social experiment' on the advice of those that don't even have to contemplate this?

Cream usually floats to the top - whenever I hear this crap, I think of the rejoinder that I read, so does shit......

Oblomov, what is 'ridiculous' and bloody ignorant is believing that getting your child into a 'good' school is all about 'planning'. You do realise that 'planning' to be rich is often not possible for most, neither is obtaining a windfall on a property purchased years ago by some, whilst others were still at 6th form college?

It seems that people also automatically assume that children who come from affluent families don't have any other type of disadvantage, and that just isn't how it works.

Plenty of children live in expensive houses and still experience abuse, family breakdowns, illness, disability, parents who don't have the time/inclination/mental strength to adequately support learning.

I don't like the insinuation that sometimes comes through on these threads that children who come from middle class families are somehow less deserving of a high quality state education than their less well off peers are. Maybe I'm reading something that isn't there, but it is a feeling I get from some posters.

I actually think the education system at the moment to some extent perpetuates middle class values. As ReallyTired said,

Learning a trade should not been seen as an option for those who aren't capable of GCSEs.

Pushing or tutoring a child is not necessarily the best parenting choice either. It can be counter-productive and put too much pressure on children.

Our society needs diversity. Someone who is skilled at a craft or trade is just as valuable to society, and can be just as rich and successful as someone who is more 'academic'. Society also needs people to do less lucrative work and more what is classed as 'unskilled' (although in my view isn't). Some people find it very rewarding and value what they do, eg bar person may love working amongst the community.

However bad schools are bad schools. Parental neglect is parental neglect. Neither of these things are dictated by where you live or how much money you have.

GoldenBear, actually I disagree. I think it is a lot about planning. Not totally. But a lot. There is a lot that can be done. None of which is related to being 'rich', as you seem to think it is.

And I don't mean planning, 'to be rich'. I never said that or thought that. That's your own preconceptions. Or a windfall.
Why you mention those 2 specific things, I have no idea!!
Neither has happened to me.
And I'm not rich.

But many many people, plan their jobs, their careers, when to sell their house. To move, in a rented place.
To change location, either by selling or renting a place in another town.
You have 4.5 years post birth to sort it out. And many years pre birth, if it's that important.

It's a bit late in the day to suddenly turn around and say, when your child is 4, I don't want them to attend the local school because it's rubbish.

YANBU to want a chance at a decent school.

YABVVU to think that catchement should be abolished. Surely the absolute staring point for school place allocation has to be that local children get a chance at going to their local school?

You are just wishing that the rules favoured you, rather than favouring more local children. That's understandable, but not at all fair.

As a teacher I agree with brokensunglasses that parental input is a huge factor in how well a child does, therefore how well a school does. In my school at least, the majority (although not all) of the best performing children have oodles of parental support, although sometimes this can go over into incredibly pushy pressure. however, although again only in my school, a lot of the lower achieving children who get zero parental support from home are from a lower socio economic background. So I don't think that using fsm as an indicator of support needed is totally wrong, although there are of course children on fsm who get lots of parental support and some more affluent kids who get none.

kungfu Surely? Well, if you want to ensure that the shadows of 'people not like us' never blight your kids' paths, yeah.

Really, you have no idea Oblomov? So you can't fathom a clue as to why I'd made those connections? So there is absolutely no link between 'outstanding' schools and good areas? I'm referring to a 'windfall' as often these lucky people bought their homes yonks ago, especially in parts of the overcrowded south and were in the right place at the right time or have inherited - it has not much to do with planning and everything to do with 'luck'.