That choice in education is an illusion for many

[Minifingers]

You often see posts here about the importance of choosing a school which is right for YOUR child. Have spent all morning looking at Dfe data on schools, and their admissions policies I've come to the conclusion that we can rank people according to how much choice they have in relation to this issue, and most of us don't actually have any or much choice.

The ranking goes like this:

Practicing members of Catholic or CofE churches who have clever/musical/sporty children and lots of money. (can choose state or private church school/secular private school/access grammar schools and selective state schools out of catchment/move into catchment of popular schools)

Non-religious people with money and clever/talented children. (can go private/move into catchment area of popular schools/access grammar schools and selective state schools out of catchment)

Church attenders with no money who have clever/talented children (church schools/private school via a bursary/scholarship/selective state schools out of catchment area)

Non-church attenders with clever/talented children (bursary/scholarship for private/selective state schools)

Non-church attenders with no money and children who are only average achievers. (non-selective secular schools that they live in the catchment area of, or unpopular schools that they are out of catchment for).

As a hierarchy of educational privilege (because it IS a privilege to choose your child's school) this is a bit shit isn't it?


I look at books like 'The Good School Guide', and the education boards here where parents debate the pros and cons of different high performing schools, and feel completely non-plussed by it. It's mostly irrelevant to me.

A school may be fantastic, and specialise in the things my children are interested in, but unless we're in its catchment area, forget it.

[Lambsie]

If you have a child with severe sen, you can have no choice of school. The nearest school that could meet my childs needs is 2 hours drive away.

[Weegiemum]

Private seems to be regarded as best, but that's not always the case. My dc go to a state school that provides bilingual education. In Glasgow, you couldn't buy that no matter how much money you had.

[OwlinaTree]

I don't think private is necessarily best, but small class sizes must help.

[Minifingers]

"I don't know how I succeeded in a primary school where there were 20 different languages."

There are vastly more than 20 different languages spoken at my dc's school, where 80% of the children are non-white, and a large part of the rest are Eastern European. The school is the highest rated in the borough for SATS at level 4 and above. Immigrants don't spoil the education of English children.

"Plus if you'd bothered to read my post the local Catholic school hasn't got many Catholics because of the high number of immigrants."

Funny, our catholic schools take huge numbers of immigrants in. Lots of African and Eastern European Catholics you know.

" They don't even have Mass and don't prepare pupils for Communion. We want religion to be part of DD's education. I think THAT is VERY Christian of me!"

Yes - some people like to get their children indoctrinated as thoroughly as possible, preferably before they develop the ability to understand what the real world is like.


"We can strive to an ideology, and work actively towards a situation where all children have equal chances, but still accept that until that is a reality, we will chose what is right for our own children."

And in doing so, in choosing to remove your child from an educational community which is representative of normal wider society, you are making sure that all children will never have equal chances. In making those choices you are becoming part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Hard working children of caring, involved parents do well in the state sector. Shame doing well is not enough for some parents

[spindoctorofaethelred]

YANBU.

I am getting beyond sick of people posting, "well you chose to send your child to that school" whenever some mumsnetter posts about a school issue.

Most people can't think, "hmm, don't like the look of the uniform policy/GCSE options at local secondary-with-places: I'd better find somewhere else". Real life is a bit more difficult than using Google/The Good School Guide to locate a more suitable school with places and then actually just moving there with a click of one's fingers.

[OwlinaTree]

Who says anything about removing your child from a wider community?

I'm leaving this now because quite frankly you are annoying me a bit. Rather than engaging in debate politely you seem to just be being rude to everybody.

I've feel I and others on here have brought up some valid and relevant points, regarding location, parental involvement, religious choice etc but you obviously just have your own agenda.

[manicinsomniac]

YANBU

I work in a private prep and, when I first started, was astounded at the amount of choice our children have when they leave at 13.

Each parent/guardian of a Y8 child has an individual meeting with our headmaster where they look through all the 'candidate' senior schools and discuss how well they 'fit' their child academically, socially, culturally, musically, sports-wise and every other which way you can think of. Schools are deemed too big, too small, too rural, too urban, too academic, too pressurised, too relaxed, too ruby obsessed, not musical enough, not dramatic enough, too far away, too close, not nurturing enough, experienced in dyslexia/dyspraxia/ASD, provides X obscure hobby etc etc etc. By the end of the process their final exams are almost a formality - a suitable school that they will pass into has been hand selected for each child.

When I left Junior school I went to the same secondary school as everybody else in my class. One size fits all. There was no choice. It seems that is still the case for the majority of people.

I can't decide whether the level of choice our children have is a wonderful thing or whether they are being needlessly pandered to and would actually learn to fit a school like everybody else does rather than have a school selected to fit them.

[ComposHat]

Surely the authentic Catholic school experience includes:

1. crippling guilt and self doubt,
   
2. Being brainwashed with fairy tales and downright untruths about the world around you.
   
3. Being told sex is dirty and shameful
   
   Being constantly on the lookout for 'overly friendly' priests.
   
   Why any sane parent would want that for their child is beyond me.

[breatheslowly]

YANBU. We live in a village. The choices are pretty much the Catholic school in the next town (if you are Catholic) or the village school. The nearest independent schools are further than I think an infant school aged child should commute and we aren't Catholic, so DD will go to the village school. There were villages we couldn't really buy a house in as the village schools were C of E (though would take any village children in preference to out of parish children) and we want the minimum religious content for DD.

The notion of 'choice' is at the least one that reflects urban areas, and is probably a London centric idea. However it seems possible to live in London in the middle of an area of religious schools and have to be shipped half way across the city because your local school won't take you due to your parents either not having the 'right' beliefs or not being able to demonstrate commitment to those beliefs.

'Choice' is a crap description of the system. Parents can show a preference, if they are in an area with many schools and children of parents with no faith or the wrong faith are discriminated against.

[SingMoreWhenYoureWinning]

I grew up in poverty and the primary school I went to was massively deprived. I want better for DD"
And yet you grew up to be a teacher.
What is the 'better' you want for your dd? Not to be educated alongside poor children?
How very Christ-like of you.

I think that is a very unfair perception.

I also grew up in poverty and went to schools in deprived areas which, to be frank, were shit schools. I did outstandingly well at GCSE Level (11 A/A* grades) and was the top performer that year by a mile. I have gone on to have a decent career.
HOWEVER...I do not want my children to have the same experience of school. I don't want the example of the 'exception' to be those children that go on to college and the norm being those that do nothing at 16. I don't want them to feel embarrassed about doing well as the majority around you are not.
I don't want them to experience the creeping-death feeling when your teacher looks at you like you're an alien because you ask for an extra reading book as the class are reading something 5 years below your reading level.

I was lucky in that I was very academic and found nothing a struggle. My dc may not be so academic. I don't want my children to attend a 'deprived' school because of the ethos and expectations that brings. So fucking shoot me.

[ZeroSomeGameThingy]

manic If your HM is only having those conversations in Yr 8 then I'm sorry to say your pupils have already been selected out of the most rarified schools, for which pre-testing happens in yr 6. So those pupils' parents are having the conversation in Yr 5.

[manicinsomniac]

doesn't seem to be the case zero. Loads of parents have meetings earlier, it's true, but, if the school turns out not to be the fit, then decisions are changed. Many of our parents have their children registered with 3 or more different schools by age 8 or so. They will only make a firm decision much later.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'rarified' schools - we're not really an Eton and Harrow type of school, we're totally non selective and over half of our intake have SEN or AN. We get 6-8 academic scholars in a year group and yes, I'm sure they have paid their deposits at top school/s early.

[AgaPanthers]

OP is entirely correct, the thing is that this arrangement suits many people just fine, in a selfish way.

Competition for naice schools pits neighbour against neighbour in a game of oneupmanship that can make people so pleased that they have won, that they forget about anything else.

Example: we send our kids private, it's very nice, they are ahead of where kids in state schools would be, blah blah blah, jolly smug, just let's overlook the £200k/child bill.

We meet new neighbour, 'oh hello, do you send your kids to [naice state primary school under a mile away]'. New neighbour, looking a bit coy: 'no they go to [religious primary school several miles away].'

I'm slightly confused at the expression on her face, why does she look smug-cum-embarrassed?

Only much later do I realise that it feeds into [high achieving religious secondary school] as of right, so basically they have got into the best state senior school by praying in the approved fashion before their children were 5, so they were actually smugger than we were.

Of course the parents engaging in these various games/paying through the nose are probably the ones least in need of the top schools, they are the ones who care the most, so politically the status quo is unlikely to be challenged, because helping those kids in need of help, at the expense of the children of pushier parents, is far less politically expedient than continuing to endorse a system where the middle classes, to a large degree, can get what they want, by playing various games.

[ZeroSomeGameThingy]

manic Given the cross section of pupils that you have I'm quite surprised that you're ambivalent about the breadth of choice available to their parents. Surely the ideal would be for every child to be directed into the best school for them? Definitely not "pandering"......

And of course many of the children who arrive at their schools without any choice on the part of their parents might make better use of your facilities and teaching. But that isn't an argument against the benefit if your school's existence.

[manicinsomniac]

I know what you mean zero and you're probably right. I guess I just question its necessity because it's so alien to me. A kind of 'I managed with a choice of 1, everyone I knew managed with a choice of 1, 93% of today's children manage with a choice of 1-2 so is it really necessary to make such a fuss. Having such a wealth of choice seems somehow indulgent when most children don't get any. But yes, everyone having the choice would be a better solution than taking the choice away from the privileged few.

[dayshiftdoris]

SEN children have priority?

They rarely even have a choice.

Specialism in mainstream and special schools have set criteria on the profile of children they take...

There are NO schools in my whole county that has a profile that my child fits into (high functioning ASD, struggles socially & emotionally, challenging behaviours and average to above average academic levels)

I have looked at 9 schools, spoke to 15 and found one which is a good compromise... Yes compromise... At best

Yet there I was, at mainstream school open evening and witnessed the mumble when the school mentioned statemented children and I was even more blessed that the man in front of me said 'Yeah it's alright for THEM! THEY get what they want'
Ironically 20mins after witnessing that I was shown out of the school by the SENCO whilst she reiterated strongly that this was not the school for my son

Choice!
I'd just like him to have opportunity...

[AgaPanthers]

I can't believe anyone seriously genuinely believes SEN and looked-after children have priority.

www.theguardian.com/education/2011/sep/19/children-in-care-education-system

The education system is designed in the interests of those who make the most noise, not those who need the most help.

[CouthyMow]

What the FUCK have they done to Scottish education?! Having been educated at GCSE level / SG level in both England and Scotland, the Scottish system was far superior. Now it sounds like it's worse than England?!

[CouthyMow]

Vj32 - are you honestly saying that because someone can't afford the internet, that they don't care about their DC's education? I can't even formulate a sensible reply to explain how wrong you are.

And to those who say that they will keep up music lessons etc outside of school because they choose not to pay for Private education, that's all well and food, but what of those who ARE good at music, but DON'T have the money for lessons outside school?

And those who think that a clever child is going to end up in a Grammar school, or succeed anyway in a state school. That's not necessarily true. My DS1 missed out (JUST) on a place at the superselective GS because he had the startings of appendicitis on the test day (already the alternate test day due to the systemic strep infection that caused his appendicitis...). His State school is unable to stretch him anywhere near far enough in Y7.

Thankfully right now, I am able to stretch him, and I'm hoping to god that he gets a place soon. (He's first on the list for the super selective GS).

I'm lucky in that right now, my maths ability is around the same as my 11yo DS1's. I'm working on A* grade GCSE level work...he's currently doing the same, with me teaching him the basic principles of each chapter. Next year, his abilities will outstrip my own, and I can't afford a tutor. He will only be in Y8.

And that's the state school with the best academic results in our town. After the GS, at least. It's no longer my catchment school either, though was lucky in as much as the HA moved me after allocations day...

[CouthyMow]

And yes, well over half the super selective GS pupils WOULD have gone private had they not gained entry to the GS. And more than usual in the current Y7. All of which is why my DS1, with an IQ in the top 1% of the population, is in a state school that isn't able to give him appropriate work, rather than in the GS. He had just 6 tutoring sessions, paid for by a kindly benefactor...yet is first on the list. If you took all the GS pupils OUT of the school that had had years of tutoring, would my DS1 have a place? Of fucking course. He was disadvantaged by the fact that I couldn't afford ££ per hour from bloody Y3/4 to pay for tutoring.

6 hours is vastly different to 4 years of two sessions every week.

The score he got, despite illness, was based on raw natural ability. Not tutored within an inch of his life. The tutoring was basically allowing him to see what an 11+ test flipping looked like.

Money talks. If you haven't got it, and your local school is shit, then it doesn't matter HOW clever you are, you're screwed.

[CouthyMow]

Winterlace. I'm afraid you are talking out of your arse. Being MC doesn't make your child guaranteed to get 'C's at GCSE any more than being lower class makes your child guaranteed to get U's.

Of all the people I know putting in complaints that their DC's weren't taught properly at school, it is the poorer ones who were pushed into doing so - because they had ended up at less desirable schools as they cannot afford to play the system!

My DC's are on FSM's, one is a D-U grade student, one is heading for a clutch of A*'s. The next looks likely now to be a A-C student.

And skiing trips are bollocks. How does a school skiing trip show the quality of the TEACHING? It shows the world the families that can afford to ski, that's all. I'd rather the teachers weren't taking a select few pupils on a Jolly during term time when they could be actually teaching my children instead of my DC's being left with 3 different substitute teachers for that week. And the same for the annual Med trip. All things like that do is disadvantage the pupils left behind.

[CouthyMow]

Idrather - they go to CERTAIN state schools. The 'old' state school my DC's attended was a predominantly white, MC school, with just 2% of FSM's, and less than 1% EAL. THAT is where you will find the MC parents.

I'd like to see them have to send their DC's to the schools on the 'bad' estate, where 63% are on FSM's and 27% are EAL. THEN let's see who gets the better education.

Why can't school allocations be done in a fairer way than they currently are, that doesn't allow any way for money to cheat the system by buying a house close to the 'good' schools, or over tutoring for GS's?

[CouthyMow]

Ilovesooty - THAT doesn't surprise me, given the immense amount of nepotism in the last state Primary school my DC's attended.

I'm glad that the one I've moved to has a very mixed intake, despite being in a deprived area, the school sets high targets for ALL DC's, has a higher than average amount of pupils who have FSM's, EAL and SEN in their background, yet consistently is spoken of as being an excellent school. And I've found it masses better than the old one.

It's a shame the catchment Secondary is dire. I will avoid that by dint of a sibling link to the one DS1 currently attends. Unless he gains a place at the GS before October. Hobson's choice there...

Crap Secondary for DS2 if DS1 is offered the GS before October, State school rather than GS if I chose to keep DS1 there to gain sibling link for DS2...

I don't know whether to hope that DS1 gets offered a place at the GS as soon as possible, or if I can cross my fingers that DS1 gets offered a place there the day after offers day for Ds2...

[CouthyMow]

Choice and SEN do NOT go hand in hand. Neither do choice and LAC. Despite what the admission criteria of schools would have you believe. Academies are now refusing to take DC's who are SA and SA+ as well as Statemented DC's because they have to fund the first £6000 of help those DC's need from the school's budget BEFORE going to the LA for additional funds.

It would not be helpful to a school's budget to have too many DC's in any given school year that require the full £6000 funding, would it? Especially not if they are trying to attract MC parents with this flashy thing and that flashy thing...

I was lucky with my DD, got her IEP's very well written, and her funding tied down until the end of Y11, as she was in Y10 by the time the school became an Academy. In Y7, there is not ONE DC with a statement, and DD says the youngest DC's she sees in the Learning Support Zone are in Y8...which says to me that there can't be too many on SA / SA+ either, as DD is in the LSZ for a fair percentage of her lessons.

Choice and SEN in the same sentence?

[fideline]

"There are NO schools in my whole county that has a profile that my child fits into (high functioning ASD, struggles socially & emotionally, challenging behaviours and average to above average academic levels)"

I found the same.

Eldest DC has a similar profile, minus challenging behaviours but plus huge dyspraxia.

Had to cause a terrible fuss for years to eventually get his most basic needs met. School ignored NHS assessments for years and I had to self-represent in all legal proceedings that eventually made them fulfil their statutory duties. Only school which could do this was 30 miles away. He now gets a funded taxi every day, but I am appalled that there's no state provision in our large city and he has to commute for 15 hrs plus in school time.

But people have strange idea that a SEN diagnosis is a winning lottery ticket in school admissions.