To think this is an elite school system via the back door.

[1DAD2KIDS]

There is a very good state school in my city. It has great facilities, staff and excellent (plus ever improving) results. It is a school that would give any private sector school a run for its money.

As a result a strange thing has happened over the last 10 years. It was once in a pretty average area with house prices reflecting the rest of the city. But now it is within in a bubble of masivly inflated house prices and rents within its catchment area. The difference in prices between a house that is in the catchment area and one just outside it is staggering. When a house in the catchment area is on the market it's always advertised in BOLD print in the catchment area of said school. These houses fly off the market.

It's clear what is going on here. As the middle classes have been priced out of the private sector they have found a new more affordable way to set up an elite school system. Afterall when you think about it in the long run its a far more ecconomical way to get your kids in a great school without paying private sector prices and once the kids have grown up you could sell the house on again and get the money back (or more). The demographic in the school has masivly changed over the last 10 years. Now the kids are pretty much all from well off, well educated backgrounds. It is no secret that part of the schools improving high achievement is due to change in student demographic. Also the school is not short of generous parents who donate or raise extra funds for the school. The only way to get into the school as it's soon popular is to live in the catchment area. The only way you can afford to live in that area and thus attend the school is by being well off. Even pretty much all the council housing in the area has gone through right to buy and now sells/rents at ridiculous prices.

What has happened in this case is clear. It is an elite school were you can only go to if you can afford the very expensive catchment area. A school for the well off funded by the state. There is nothing technically wrong but is there something morally wrong? Is it in the spirit of the state school system to have an excellent state school were only those wealthy enough can attend due to catchment area? Or is it just another obstical to social mobility?

gerda nobody has said offering all dc equally good schools will make life equal. But some of us are of the opinion that we don't need to entrench it further with a state system that selects on economic background.

notdavid of course we would. Unless you mean communism. Reform employment all you like, God knows it needs it, and ensure that however unskilled a ft worker has a secure, living wage. But someone will still need to do those unskilled jobs. And we'll still need people with high ability in different areas to take other roles.

'it's well know London has been unfairly over funded for years. Many schools outside of London have struggled'

No, Ironing, we have ALL been underfunded for years, some more than others. Infighting only helps them cut even more- don't fall for it.

Yes I did read your earlier post Magpie and thought it utterly ridiculous. Pandering to rule breakers wow what a great idea. The vast maj of parents up and down the land would run a mile. Many want order and rules and bust a gut to get it.And as for the shoe fastening thing. Words fail me and I have a child with an Sen who struggles in that area.

I was talking about socially divisive and discriminatory rules rigidly, harshly and punitively implemented, Ironing. Rules should be reasonably implemented with room for swift reconciliation. Rules should also not discriminate between different ethic and social sectors or those who are disabled or with learning difficulties those who are not disabled and have no learning difficulties.

Surely you are not arguing the opposite? People are sometimes rule breakers because they cannot, through no fault of their own, follow the rules rather than being wilfully disobedient.

London schools have had 60% higher funding than schools in my area for years.

If we had a more equal society in general we wouldn't have all this fuss about schools, because it would no longer be seen as a necessity to get into a good school in order to make something of your life

I agree. The problem in the UK is really the undead class system rather than education system per se - although the latter really isn't working.

Germany has its gymnasiums and technical schools, and while there are undoubted drawbacks to the system, it is not associated poor social mobility the way it is here. The technical schools are very good, provide valuable apprenticeships in association with a wide range of industries, from which students can go on to valued and highly paid jobs. Germany has a noticeably lower level of youth unemployment than the UK. Germany is more socialist politically, and half of it was communist for 50 odd years, there's not the same preoccupation with class.

In France no-one goes to boarding school unless they're conservative catholic or have behavioural problems. There are private selective schools, but you don't get the same class divide issues. The French see class as le vice anglais.

In Australia, with its much more egalitarian society, there are selective and non-selective state schools and private - many of the private schools being much cheaper than the UK - and there's less difference between them all. And far less friction.

I find in that in many foreign countries, aspiring to good education is seen as a boon for life, and a way out of poverty, whereas in the UK it's often derided as ambitious or social climbing or the concern of the sharp-elbowed middle classes. Getting above yourself in some way.

Immigrants often have no such qualms, they may come from countries where education is highly valued, and their families need to work hard to establish themselves in this country.

And you do realise schools are seeking parental donations because they are chronically underfunded. Schools in historic underfunded areas which have limited pp kids on top are seriously struggling. What are they supposed to do? Just run a shorter week or close earlier?

I never said they weren't. Just that over enthusiastically seeking parental donations does nothing to narrow attainment gaps. In fact it perpetuates the situation whereby PP is needed more for schools in areas where the parents cannot afford the donations.

Soooo some should follow rules but not others. Sounds peachy. How do you explain that to kids sat in front of you?

The areas with more pp get more so have less need to ask. Its voluntary and nobody knows who pays and who doesn't.

How do you explain that to kids sat in front of you?

You have more inclusive rules, to begin with, so more are able to follow the rules. Also the school staff have the authority in the implementation of these rules - not the children.

Sitting in front of you.

1DAD2KIDS

I completely agree with you 100%.

But children aren't daft and if some don't have to follow rules but others do they will quite rightly just not bother to follow them themselves.

And surely you pick rules according to need when managing vast numbers of children.

The areas with more pp get more so have less need to ask. Its voluntary and nobody knows who pays and who doesn't.

No. PP is there to close attainment gaps for those at an educational disadvantage and those who are not. If there is a smaller amount of educational disadvantage the extra resource is simply not as needed.

However, the money should be strictly targeted towards the qualifying groups, in order to assess how successful the scheme, as it stands is. Anything less, muddies the waters, so to speak, which masks funding needs (most usually for those with SEN), in other areas and revenue is not targeted towards these groups.

So kids in schools with less pp kids have less need for libraries,music deps,books......

'London schools have had 60% higher funding than schools in my area for years.'

Lots of reasons for this, Ironing. London costs more across the board, being one. It has a higher proportion of pupil premium students than anywhere else. Higher wage bills.
Also, I live in a borough where all of our comps have been rebuilt. Sounds great but it was done with PFI- they are all massively in debt with ridiculous contracts, eg my son's school has to pay to use its own buildings after 7pm; until recently it had to pay to make changes to it's own website.
Our school playgrounds are not paved with gold.

We have all been underfunded.

But children aren't daft and if some don't have to follow rules but others do they will quite rightly just not bother to follow them themselves

No, children aren't daft. We should not underestimate their capacity for compassion for those who find following some rules more difficult. I'm not talking about rules to do with basic health and safety or serious class disruption. I am talking about disablist, racist, sexist rules and rules which discriminate against families with less money.

But someone will still need to do those unskilled jobs. And we'll still need people with high ability in different areas to take other roles.

Yes, but the difference in outcome between those two groups doesn't have to be as large as it is now. In 1998 CEOs of FTSE 100 companies earned 47 times the average company employee. Now it's over 130 times. So in a crude way you could argue there is nearly three times the incentive to push you child towards the 'CEO track' than the 'average employee track' than there was 20 years ago.

So kids in schools with less pp kids have less need for libraries,music deps,books......

PP should be strictly targeted towards the qualifying group, as I explained earlier. It should not be used as a free 'money pot' to spend on a whole school. If the qualifying group have less ability to pay for instruments or books then that money would be fulfilling a continuing need for that sector of pupils.

Wasn't saying that. You were saying on top of pp schools in less affluent areas should get even more. Sooooo schools in other areas should just put up with losing libraries,music deps,books etc.

Do you not think parents working hard to get a good wage will just think hang on a lower wage would be better for my kids as they get a vastly better funded school.

And re rules which would be deemed worthy of ignoring and which enforcing?

You were saying on top of pp schools in less affluent areas should get even more.

No I wasn't. Where did I say that? I was suggesting that if the schools that were able to rely on higher level parental donations did better, than those that couldn't, then perhaps all schools should receive better funding and aggressively, actively seeking parental donations be abolished in state schools, with a return to a truly free state education. The purpose of which, at its concept, was to narrow social divides.

Do you not think parents working hard to get a good wage will just think hang on a lower wage would be better for my kids as they get a vastly better funded school.

No. Higher wages buy more than education. Financial security, generally, cannot be underestimated.

And re rules which would be deemed worthy of ignoring and which enforcing?

Are you telling me you would be unable to work out which rules are discriminatory and work against inclusion?

I'd be interested to see which you thought some should be able to opt out of and which should be enforced.

I've already covered some in my earlier posts, Ironing. I assumed you had read them.