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?

We have what is called a community. Sending children to different schools would radically alter the fabric of our village and make it much more isolating for all who live there.

Where we live there are 2 outstanding schools, one in our small town and one in the large village a couple of miles away. There's no problems getting into one of the two. Houses here are relatively expensive though , but a little cheaper than equivalent hoses in the nearby city

I'd like that too head. Unfortunately I had to balance that with the need for a school that has the staff and the desire to educate dc and provide something resembling pastoral care. Interestingly the travel issue wasn't encountered by any of the local parents that suddenly felt the need to downsize to a good catchment, go private or find religion for secondary. Or those who suddenly had reasons to move to what are coincidentally the nearest places with grammars.

miaow bullying is a good reason to move. But bullying isn't a consequence of economic status, bullies come from all backgrounds and ineffective slt aren't the result of intake.

My two nearest comprehensives have almost identical intakes, except the better has more complex Sen making up the %, and usually ends up with dc that have been removed from the other. (Bullying, expulsion, managing out more difficult Sen etc). And yet only the bad school has a bullying problem. The difference is the staff/ leadership, not the pupils.

As for private schools: they are not going to be forbidden. That bus left the terminus fifty years ago when the European Court of Human Rights decided - in a case from Belgium, not the UK - that the State cannot claim a monopoly on the education of children, and a good thing too.

"I'll never forgive the Blair government for putting a rocket under it (to the detriment of everyone) by introducing league tables."

League tables were introduced by the Major government in 1992 (in England): 5 years before the Blair government.

@MiaowTheCat horrible bullying happens even in middle class schools, and in private schools. It’s not exclusive to any socio-economic group

Trouble is, things never even up. They even down to average (if you're lucky).

But if at present we have some amazing state schools, some average and some awful, surely if making all schools amazing is a pipe dream we should be aiming to at least make all average? It would be a shame to lose the really good schools, but if that's the only practical way of losing the bad schools then it's a fair compromise imo.

Lurked

We find ourselves agreeing on two threads today
Where we live there is one outstanding secondary that really services a few streets. To the areas credit though, houses are no more expensive.
There are a few average ones but many poor schools.
When all is left for your child is a poor school in a different area on a sink estate where you are culturally different, it seems so unfair.
This was the case for my ds1, I wish it had been different for him.
The other dc weren't affected and got average.
Poor schools in disadvantaged areas shouldn't exist.

I'm not sure how rural we are meaning by semi rural here, but where I grew up the secondary schools are all a good 10 miles a part so then if you use a lottery you're going to have fewer children from each village/hamlet (currently usually about 10 children) so then instead of having to visit 5 villages to fill up the bus and the journey taking 45 mins (plus the walk of up to a mile to the bus stop) you're going to have maybe only 2 or 3 kids and need to visit maybe 15 villages and then the journey will be an hour and half plus walk? There's already no transport home from after school clubs.

I think cities have very different needs from the countryside - to me school lotteries come into the same category and suggesting we should get rid of the summer holiday to improve attainment. Sure you can do that in the cities but where I grew up you did (and children still do) start helping on the farms from the age of 14, and the summer holidays are needed for harvest. Some things just can't be applied universally- but I can see how within a town where the schools have only a mile or two between them it could be viable to use a lottery system.

I think the idea behind it is not that it will drag everyone down but that if you have a proportion of motivated children with involved parents that that will mean that you then have a more active PTA and more involved parent governors and then it's a better school to work at so good teachers split more evenly and then hopefully you create a positive spiral. I'm not sure what the critical mass of motivated pupils is though!

But we wouldn't lose amazing schools, just the state ones.

We are going local. It always raises eyebrows when I say where my eldest goes to school- it's a big, noisy comp but the size means it offers a broad curriculum with lots of extra-curricular opportunities. It looks like a disaster on paper but that has never been our experience. We know that in other people's eyes we are taking a risk but mixing with people from different socio-economic backgrounds is part of his education.
The fact that he is bright and has us behind him is advantage enough. His two younger brothers are the same

Loving how the poster who mentioned Pates conveniently forgot to mention the comp Balcarass which is in the same city.Our family members are visiting schools this year. They visited Pates because their dc have a chance(albeit a small one), they didn't even bother visiting Balcarass as due to them never being able to afford a house in the catchment there isn't a hope in hell chance they could ever get a place.

Op yanbu.

Head that's great when you can afford to live in a desirable community,not everybody can.

I'm glad my dc travel to school. They are attending a school in a city with more diverse cultures and backgrounds the the local comp in the very white middle class town we live in.

ironing
Our community is as diverse as they come, very average. social housing and large houses.
However there are disadvantages with going to such a mixed school.
The numbers of pupils playing an instrument is lower than you would get in a middle class bubble school, and so bands and orchestras just aren't really a thing.
Certainly there isn't parental interest, or much support. I think you need a critical mass, which is above the average quota of middle class parents we have.
Overall I think all the children don't do as well as they could.

gilly

ety That's why I don't think it is the best solution for all. By semi rural round here I mean it's a couple of miles to the nearest big village that has something that could be described as a tiny shopping area and has a small supermarket and library maybe 6/7 miles to the nearest small town. Lottery would work in the areas like mine but wouldn't for the further out kids without reforming public transport.

Hence why I'd prefer to fund schools based on intake. So if you have a mainly mc intake the price is low funding because it's an easier cohort. Mainly deprived then higher funding. Alternatively give low income dc (not just fsm poverty level) first choice of state schools with wealthier kids given secondary priority. With direction from professionals so the uninformed aren't encouraged to choose the bad schools.

Of course whichever way it was done I'd ditch religious criteria, and with a fair comprehensive system you could ditch grammars too. Except super selectives for the top 1/2% if you could make it ability rather than tutor based for entry.

I think generally, standards of discipline in schools need to be higher- and consequences that means something for sustained poor behaviour. Being from a disadvantaged background should not be used by schools to tolerate misbehaviour. It's actually pretty insulting to the children to allow lower standards simply because their parents aren't as wealthy

Jacks, this sort of assumption from schools, that children with less wealthy parents need rigid, no tolerance, harsh, exacting and punitive discipline policies - that are usually discriminatory and disablist to boot, is what really puts me off some schools.

There have been several schools reported in the media which seem to show no recognition of the local community banning pretty mundane, culturally widespread and inoffensive hairstyles such as a short back and sides, dreadlocks and long hair for boys as well as incorporating exclusively logged expensive uniforms. Just to add insult to injury banning easier Velcro fastenings on school shoes disadvantages children with fine motor skills difficulties, which of course is disablist as even if exceptions are made those exceptions single these children out. I have also heard reports concerning rules demanding eye contact which disadvantages many children with ASD.

This is again socially divisive because many parents would go to all the lengths they could to avoid the trauma a school such as these could cause to their DC. But not every parent can afford to do this. Those that can't end up with DC forming a negative association with education.

Logoed. Autocorrect fail

Umm, yes this has been going since I was at school (a long time ago).

lurked
Disadvantage doesn't only come in the form of income, or lack of it.
Illness of parents, or siblings, and poverty of parental time if both parents work long hours even if they are well off.
I don't think it's just a case of income.

lurked - yes, I tend to agree with that.

You can't really cut funding any more than it has been already so I think it would have to be an overall increase, but if you could increase funding at schools with more challenging in takes then you could cut teaching time so then give more time for planning, marking and intervention and it might also then cut the time for teachers working outside school hours which might make teaching there more attractive in comparison to a less challenging school where the teaching might be easier but more of it.

Then if you can keep good teachers, and increase the amount of time they have for disadvantaged pupils you can hopefully bring everything up.

Would have to be very carefully implemented though, as (as with everything) there would be a lot of ways it could go wrong. I think it would be hard to balance the need for schools to make their own spending decisions with a way of consistently ensuring that changes were evidence based and efficacy was monitored (but also somehow without spending forever testing everyone!!)

Maireadplastic We’re with you.* DDs go to local primary and are then heading to bog standard, very diverse both socio-economically and culturally, secondary. They’ll walk there will pals. Some of my school Mum pals who’ve moved for schools think we’re bonkers. There is so much more to an education than exam results.*