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?

[Headofthehive55]

I agree with oldie that it's the disadvantaged that cause the problems.
In our comp it's mainly unsetted too so that causes issues.
In general my children only play with those from the same background - we tend to have the same rules you see.

[JonSnowsWife]

Of course race and it's relation to housing is another issue with schools being less diverse. In my city certain racial groups have tended to stick to certain neighbourhoods of the city and thus certain schools have a very narrow diversity. These kids rarely get to mix with kids from other backgrounds .

It matters not whether they mix with kids from their backgrounds, or other backgrounds. DCs went to a very multicultural inner-city state school. The eldest was still subjected to racial abuse on a regular basis.

None of the other schools would take her, basically I hadn't sat in the church pews long enough to get accepted in to the others. Literally all of the other schools here are faith based schools. There are three a stones throw away from our house. One C of E primary. One catholic primary. One catholic SS. (all three are in my catchment area, DD was baptised RC, her Dad is RC and they're literally no more than a ten minute walk away). The strange thing is, I pass people on the school run to DSs school coming from his catchment area TO said catholic school in our catchment area. (I know it's said school because they have a very, erm, interesting uniform.

I got a place for DS by pure luck at the OOC school, I don't complain because I consider myself extremely lucky and they've been a wonder for him (he has ASD & ADHD).

[Andrewofgg]

A lottery not only increases school running - those in favour, at least tell us you would limit it to the first child and retain sibling preference for younger ones - it also makes it difficult for children to meet and form friendships outside school hours.

I'm a bit amsued that the OP thinks s/he's spotted something new!

[unlimiteddilutingjuice]

NewDaddie That is awful and I'm really glad its being challenged.
We have a similar situation on my estate- under the Scottish system.
The catchment school (literally on the estate) was closed down in a round of cuts, against fierce opposition from residents.
Initially our estate was put in the catchment of the nearby naice school.
Naice parents got up a petition, ostensibly on the grounds of "class sizes"- really on the grounds of class.
The council backed down to this and we are now in the catchment of a school on another estate much further away, along a busy main road.
When i was looking at primary applications it was noticible that everyone from Ds's nursery was putting in placing requests for other schools. Either naice school or local Catholic schools.
The council have recently announced a new school in the area. Its nearby us and will probably have a socially mixed intake.
In my naivity I assumed that this would be an acceptable solution to most people on the estate. Not the case.
So much trust has been lost that many people will only be happy with another school on the estate. The feeling is that if theres any chance at all that middle class people will want something- it will be taken away from us in the end. People want a school thats obviously "ours".

[user1487194234]

We moved into our house for exactly this reason
I wanted to do the best for my children
I suppose I am taking advantage of the system

[unlimiteddilutingjuice]

A point about poverty and disadvantage: Yes it can effect attainment. Yes it can effect behaviour.
But I really think if we're talking about education, asking about the intake is asking the wrong question. We should be looking at what the school is doing with the intake. Whats the value add? How is the pastral care?
Whats the bullying policy?
Lets not be fatalistic about working class children or give up on the idea of social equality.

[NataliaOsipova]

Whatever system you put in place can be gamed. And people with more education and more money are usually in a better place to game whatever system that is.

For example - my DH's partner nobs on about how his kids didn't go to private school. No, they didn't - but they lived in a hugely affluent area and he spent a small fortune on private tutors to get them into the local grammar school. Is that "fairer" than our paying for our kids to go private? Not sure.

Similarly, there's the phenomenon of selection by house price that you mention, OP. What about people who buy a house and then move when their second child has got in on the sibling preference rule? Or people who rent in the area? Or move in with grandparents? Or say their child is resident with a non resident parent?

I think you have to accept that any system will have its flaws and those will be exploited.

[BertrandRussell]

It's interesting that if it's a thread about private or grammar schools and anyone raises the commute as an issue there is a chorus of "Oh, it's fine" "the journey's the best it of the day""they'll keep local friends" and so on.
Mention a lottery system and it's suddenly a huge problem.

[magpiemischeif]

I don't particularly agree with grammars either Bertrand. My ideal is a good fully comprehensive system which serves the local community - whatever the demographic. I think this adds to greater social cohesion as well as being advantageous educationally. I am not particularly elitist. I think people need to be prepared, to some extent work, mix and for their children to be educated, amongst the people they live alongside. Anything else is somewhat socially divisive. You get people living in bubbles. Which I do to an extent because I'm no social butterfly but all the same I am happy for my DC to be educated at a comprehensive (even though there is a grammar in our town within walking distance.)

[unlimiteddilutingjuice]

I can see why BertrandRussell is in favour of a lottery. But I don't personally think its the solution.
Too many people, and perhaps especially working class people, favour the idea of a local school. Something thats theirs.
For good practical reasons too.

I think its very difficult to achieve educational equality if the wider circumstances are widening inequality. A lot of the attitudes we've seen on this thread are to do with how middle class people behave in circumstances of inequality. They become ever more anxious to hang onto whatever advantage they have and develop more of a tendancy to isolate themselves.

I favour an educational policy of good local comprehensives against a backdrop of general wealth redistribution.
I'd also love to see the return of collectivist values in social housing. The idea that council estates are supposed to be for the very poorest right up to the middle classes. I'd love to see that kind of ethic come back. So that everyone is living the same sort of lifestyle, in the same type of home, going to the same schools and so on.
We no longer find it odd that peope of all classes enjoy popular culture (which is really part of the same idea and perhaps the only part that has stuick) so theres no reason we can't reduce class duistinction in other areas of life.

[Oldie2017]

JohnS, that's awful. My sons were qhite in a majority non white school and not bullied (and nor do I think most of those teenagers bullied anyone based on colour or race or not that I heard about).

I do like that on the whole we have quite a bit of mixing of different people in the UK rather than the way Paris I think has more separate areas for different kinds of people. We have a residents association for this private estate and it has the same name as that of the association of the council estate which is about 2 streets away. All quite mixed in but as it's London lots of choice of different kinds of schools.

[JonSnowsWife]

A point about poverty and disadvantage: Yes it can effect attainment. Yes it can effect behaviour.

Yes it can. That's why I'm pleased that DSs primary prided itself on taking people from outside of catchment purely for the whole social mobility thing I think, well I like to think anyway.

In the DDs last school. Hardly any work was done. Those who wanted to work and get on had their class disrupted several times a day. This was evident when we moved DD into DSs school, at the end of the year, the progress the teacher showed us was amazing.

[C8H10N4O2]

I think you have to accept that any system will have its flaws and those will be exploited

Whilst I agree this is true that is no reason to continue systems which we know are extremely divisive and discriminatory or to stop trying to improve.

I think a lottery has a lot going for it in densely populated areas. In rural areas where everyone has fewer options anyway for secondary it may not be such an issue.

[QueenofLouisiana]

Our (rural) area has 2 main secondary schools; one has a substantially better reputation than the other. Until now it hasn’t been a massive issue, but it is clear that it isn’t a blip in admissions, it’s continuing long term.

The popular school has now shifted its admission criteria to “priority catchment schools”- so to have a good chance of a place, your child must have been in the right primary school at the start of yr6. The village ones on the list are already full in yr6 and the (previously not popular) town schools have reported a surge in applications at the start of the year, when the new admissions policy was released.

Catchment was a problem in yr6, it’s now shifted down a few years. I foresee houses that we previously not popular being in great demand, just for the primary admissions to get into secondary a few years later.

[Lurkedforever1]

I didn't say that disadvantage doesn't cause problems. I just don't believe that in any school a tiny handful of deprived dc cause all the problems while the mc kids are all well behaved.

Yy re the hypocrisy, can't stand people who take advantage of the back door selection of comprehensives, whilst refusing to acknowledge they are doing so, or that there is even an issue. But at the same time banging on about the unfairness of private and grammar.

C8 I don't know about really rural, but semi rural it really isn't working. Too many people for everyone to be at just one secondary. Yet nowhere near dense enough to give mixed intakes from catchment. The minority of mc kids who fall into a bad catchment either move, go private or more commonly find religion. The minority of deprived dc that fall into good catchment do very well. However even a grotty ex council in good catchment has a much higher rent than a nice ex council or blue collar private estate home in bad catchment.

[jacks11]

So that everyone is living the same sort of lifestyle, in the same type of home, going to the same schools and so on

But is that realistic? Or even desirable? I don't think it is. Of course social cohesion is important. As is having an adequate supply of social housing, so that everyone has access to a home. In an ideal world all schools would be equally good, but I've yet to see a system which produces it (though obviously some countries manage it better than others).

But I wouldn't want to live on a housing estate- I live rurally by choice. Other people prefer period properties or modern, some prefer to have large gardens, others don't want the upkeep. The list of variables is endless. I would hate everything to be "the same".

Not only that, but not everyone wants the same sort of lifestyle- and people with differing disposable incomes will usually have different lifestyles (to some extent) anyway. Even people with similar incomes can have very different lifestyles depending on what their priorities are. I see this within my own family.

"All going to the same type of school" is fine in theory, but it's not reality. There will always be variation in outcome, based on a wide variety of factors.

I think you can aim to have better social cohesion without trying to assimilate everyone in the way you describe.

[Andrewofgg]

And every attempt to impose that sort of equality has failed. There is always a Nomenklatura living better than the proles.

[soupmaker]

Someone asked about the Scottish system. We kid ourselves it’s different up here but really it’s not.

I’m in Glasgow. Most people do send kids to the local primary - there is two Gaelic medium schools that has large intake of middle class wealthy kids as it’s seen as as good as private.

But Secondary is a whole other matter. Plenty of folk living in smaller houses they’re struggling to pay a mortgage on to get into “the best” schools in East Renfrewshire and East Dunbartonshire. I met lovely mum’s when DD1 was born and they all turned into crazed loons about schools. Same with some of the school mums I met when she went to school.

And don’t get me started on the blight that is religious segregation up here.

[NeverTwerkNaked]

Spending considerably over the odds for a house “in catchment” is a big gamble, for several reasons:

• the “great” school might not be that great - results may be propped up by parents paying for tutors (my secondary)
  
• a “great” school doesn’t necessarily mean your child will be happy there - some are over pressured
  
• a “great” school only needs a few key staff changes to go downhill significantly
  
• catchment areas can be re-drawn. That’s what’s about to happen near me, and parents who have paid a six figure premium to be “in catchment” will find themselves well outside

[lostinpost]

I guess they are choosing to pay a huge mortgage and extra tax (when buying an expensive home) and if they are on good salaries they will be paying a huge amount of tax, so it is kind of a payoff, they pay a premium to get into a good school, they are not getting it for free, their huge taxes and huge mortgage are the price they will pay for their children having a good state education and since they are taxpayers they have just as much right to go to a state school than everyone else.

[Andrewofgg]

Years ago when my Socialist DSis was being sniffy about DS going to (day) public school I coined Andrew's Formulation:

It is unfair and socially divisive to do more to advance the education of your children than teachers can afford to do.

So school fees are out; buying in the right area is iffy; filling your home with books is in.

[BertrandRussell]

"So school fees are out; buying in the right area is iffy; filling your home with books is in."

Yep- that seems fair to me. Because anyone, regardless of income, could fill their home with books.

[C8H10N4O2]

Lurked C8 I don't know about really rural, but semi rural it really isn't working. Too many people for everyone to be at just one secondary. Yet nowhere near dense enough to give mixed intakes from catchment

So would the lottery system work in semi rural, maybe with overlapping mid density areas to minimise very long journeys? Presumably all the children are anticipating school buses already?

[C8H10N4O2]

Never
a “great” school only needs a few key staff changes to go downhill significantly

This is routinely under appreciated. I've watched secondaries and primaries change from weak to outstanding and outstanding to weak in 3-4 yrs, just on the change of a head teacher. Buying property when DC are, say, 5 or 6 on the assumption that you are 'safe' is a huge gamble.