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?

The root of the issue isn't with housing or financial equality - the problem is caused by the disparity of quality between different schools.

If all schools provided the same quality of education to pupils, there wouldn't be so much emphasis on getting into one of the 'better' schools. And I don't believe people would be so worried about sending their child to a school with a less well-off demographic if the educational outcomes for pupils were the same.

There needs to be more emphasis on bringing the lesser-quality schools (and teachers) up to scratch and on ensuring that children's background has less of an impact on their educational success. I know this has definitely been happening in London in the most deprived areas over the past few years and I believe it's possible, but the government is too under-resourced to do this across the board.

We lacked the political will to change society so we tried to change working class mothers instead.

Exactly that!

There needs to be more emphasis on bringing the lesser-quality schools (and teachers) up to scratch and on ensuring that children's background has less of an impact on their educational success.

Agree there too.

the problem is caused by the disparity of quality between different schools.

I've been saying the same for decades. All the educational changes since the 1960's are missing the elephant in the room. We need consistency between teachers and between schools. The teaching quality is the lowest common denominator here and it's the one thing that the "blob" doesn't seem to recognise. Changing intakes, changing teaching methods, academisation, setting, streaming, etc doesn't actually address the problem of crap teachers and crap leadership. We need to work towards a "mcdonald's" approach of standardisation and systemisation where all schools provide the "same product" in the "same way". It's ridiculous to have individual teachers writing their own teaching materials - the good ones will do it well, the crap ones won't - why not have a central database of worksheets etc that teachers can just pick and choose? Why not have a central database of lesson plans? At least, then, the poorer teachers will be using quality materials/plans and are more likely to give a quality lesson.

I've been looking on DS's school homework system, and it's just a joke that different teachers have put different worksheets on it for their classes - some are clearly photocopies from books, others are handwritten "scrappy" worksheets, others are word-processed by the teacher - but all are remarkably similar. Eg, for the start of year 9, the Maths teachers all started with introduction to trigonometry. 7 different classes, 7 different teachers, 7 different worksheets all covering the basics. That's 7 teachers who've spent time writing 7 different worksheets. The school should have a standardised worksheet that all the teachers can use. In fact, the country should have a standardised worksheet for the basic/preliminary.

@unlimiteddilutingjuice

Is that book about the UK? I think it’s a massive cultural difference between here and a lot of countries. In a lot of countries, it’s very obviously the parents responsibility to bring up their own child. In the UK it seems that the expectation is on the school instead.

Karriecreamer- I worry that 'standardised worksheets' would have good teachers running to the hills.

I'm not sure many teachers would read past your use of the word 'blob'.

In the UK it seems that the expectation is on the school instead.

Oh, hardly! Why is this trotted out when people are looking to the direction of schools when discussing educational success? It's not rocket science that what goes on in schools will have something to do with varying degrees of educational success. If schools are so unable to make a difference, what is the point of them?

The truth is that schools can make a difference and some really do. Education is successful when it is fully comprehensive and actual adds value and supports the whole community, instead of being at war with it and in the process alienating, stigmatising and disillusioning whole social sectors.

JoJoSM2

Yes. The book is written in the UK and the giant cohorts were a UK project. Its a fascinating story and I'd recommend anyone to read it.

We lacked the political will to change society.

Or: no party promoting levelling down and imposing the same life-style on everyone - as a PP seemed to want - has a chance in this particular universal suffrage democracy. We are the society which rejects that change.

Agree with unlimiteds posts.

Schools will never be equal until we acknowledge that to be so they need mixed intakes.

Ignoring the local shithole, our second furthest isn't a bad school. Apart from it's complete lack of anything available for higher achievers. It has good, experienced, qualified staff, and pastorally I can't fault it. But someone has decided that because the vast majority are from low income homes, they can't possibly need triple science, or further maths, or two mfl. Or any support to get anything beyond a b/c. And yet I know from open evening several staff I spoke to want to offer more, and try when they get the opportunity. And lets not start on the crap all round school!

Open evenings were an eye opener for me. The different assumptions made about what exactly you would likely be most interested in and what your priorities are.

We can offer all the early years support in the world, and all the school funding, but if we still have schools assuming kids are academically average at best, before they even start secondary, based on economic status then it won't make any difference.

jojo in relation to the funding, how is that morally different to parents that educate privately paying for schools their dc don't attend? Why is it ok for them to pay taxes towards your dc's education and then pay again for their dc? But not ok for you to pay taxes towards low income dc and then contribute towards resources for your own?

Especially when you consider that in the country as a whole, some parents paying fees will have smaller incomes than many state parents.

And back to pp, how far do you think that goes for kids with quite complex problems? Many kids on pp who just happen to be poor, but from supportive, caring, informed homes don't get to see much, if any of their pp if they are hitting average benchmarks. Let alone any benefit for the average or high achieving kid from a low income but above fsm home.

Oh and bollocks to all schools using fixed lessons. It's hard enough keeping good teachers as it is. And the last thing education needs is any more rot about all kids all learning everything at the same time and age.