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?

Some of us get a fair bit of choice. My borough even has a state hindu primary school (I think one of the only ones in the country). Less populated areas have less choice but even then parents can home educate. Some choose state boarding schools too.

This is a fact of life in this country. Parents who got a good education and went on to university normally get better paid jobs. They also value education for their children more - on average - and will want the same for their children. They are also able to afford to buy in areas with good schools. You could technically put a whole load of professional parent class kids (I dislike the term middle class) into an under performing school and the results would over time improve. It's happened where I live. When we bought the prices were cheaper than other areas - but as people got priced out of the more expensive areas they chose ours. As a result prices went up not initially because of the school - but as more professional people moved in and sent their kids to the local school - it's results improved. If all parents supported their kids at home - worked with them more - pushed them more - then this would happen across the UK. It's never been a secret that kids whose parents help them do better. Yes schools can help but as with most things in life - parents are the greatest influence.

My DB is a teacher in a SS. He criticises me for sending my DC to a private school and prattles on about social justice, inequality etc..meanwhile he is hoping to wangle a place for his DD at the school he teaches at despite it being out of catchment...he’s got a good chance apparently...makes my blood boil.

If all parents supported their kids at home - worked with them more - pushed them more - then this would happen across the UK. It's never been a secret that kids whose parents help them do better. Yes schools can help but as with most things in life - parents are the greatest influence.

Annoyed, so much for closing the attainment gaps between those classed as socially disadvantaged and those classed as advantaged, eh?

It is because parents remain the most important influence on educational achievement that the attainment gaps remain.

If we want greater educational equality, between social sectors, schools have to rely less on parents and ensure all children are educationally advantaged through the influence of the school.

Soupmaker- good luck! My eldest is in yr 9, so far so good, my others are yr 6 and yr 2. We're in SE London, whereabouts are you?

Magpie do you not think schools work tirelessly to do this.

Who do you think are targeted and top priority? The kids with a good work ethic who are where they should and meeting the targets schools are judged on or the reverse?

The less well off already do get extra money, upping the threshold for Pp is a good idea but sorry targeting schools as a whole for extra money isn't.

If we want greater educational equality, between social sectors, schools have to rely less on parents and ensure all children are educationally advantaged through the influence of the school.

How? Ban parents from reading to their children, stop them from helping them to understand their homework? Make sure that they have no access to books in their homes? Close down all libraries?

Other than the finanial saving we can not over look the value of these schools in terms of middle class/hipster/trustastafarian smug points. Schools like these allow high earning parents to buy into a school that gives them high levels of Smug points without risking their kids education. No doubt the smug points are doubled if your a middle class Labour supporter.

Same everywhere I think. Which is why the middle classes who can afford to buy houses in good catchment areas continue to do well.

Dd went to one of the worst schools in the country for years 7-11 and has moved to a much better school for sixth form. She said to me today that at her old school she was always teased for being rich and posh (we're really not in the grand scheme of things) and now at her new school she says everyone is better off than we are. Girls coming to school in £300 Ted Baker coats, etc.

And at the grammar in the next (not very nice and cheap housing) town again the richer parents are advantaged. There's a pass rate and then places are allocated on distance. Well off parents who are border line on distance for a place rent a house in town for 6-12 months. Don't live there....they can afford £400 a month rent for an empty house.

It's not an accusation, Ironing, it is regarding what I think is an ideal.

Schools over enthusiastically seeking extra money from parental donations or setting homework that requires a great deal of parental supervision disadvantage further and exclude, not only children whose parents lack money and education but also those dealing and supporting others with serious illnesses and long term health conditions.

Equally enforcing overly harsh and punitive, discriminatory rules causes (as mentioned in my earlier post) further disadvantage as it causes those who are discriminated against to have negative associations with their education.

The less well off already do get extra money, upping the threshold for Pp is a good idea but sorry targeting schools as a whole for extra money isn't.

Well that is debatable. If those schools, that are successfully relying on parental donations, are doing better perhaps that indicates it is funding that is the issue?

How? Ban parents from reading to their children, stop them from helping them to understand their homework? Make sure that they have no access to books in their homes? Close down all libraries?

Gerda, I have addressed this in my last post. 2 things I think could help are overly enthusiastically seeking and not relying on parental donations - as this is socially divisive and not enforcing rigid, harsh and discriminatory rules.

Where did I say libraries should be closed down? Schools can actively encourage the use of them as much as parents do, though.

Agree re parental donations being divisive. DSC go to a school in a wealthy catchment and their PTA raised 10x what my sons similar sized school does each year
(They squander it though, in my opinion. And the wealthy school has failed to tackle the bullying of DsD and is failing to stretch DSS . My son goes to school in a much poorer catchment but it is a much better school from our experiences. And actually there’s been no bullying, whereas DSD is bullied by some “naice” middle class children...)

A certain political party tried to stop this at the last election but very 'socialist' politicians seem to like it. It makes it easier to be be popular whilst still still keeping a privileged system for their own children.

The only solution is to ban selection by wealth and have a meritocracy.

'No doubt the smug points are doubled if your a middle class Labour supporter.'

So, OP, was this thread started in order to have a conversation or to take a pop at Labour voters?

Or you get the situation we have: Our nearest secondary school is one of the best state schools in the country and has no catchment area. We are therefore competing for spaces with children from miles around.

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.

If we had a more equal society in general

The truth is that children are born with different of abilities. It would be so much easier if we were all born the same. We are not and so we need to develop a system that takes account of that.

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.

Re your school funding issue,it's well know London has been unfairly over funded for years. Many schools outside of London have struggled with funding for years and still manage to get good results. The funding system has been downright unfair for a long time,many areas have had years of underfunding and are long overdue a boost( not that they'll see it). How would you decide on this whizzy idea? The income in the SE is far better than elsewhere and the North. Are schools in the North and Cornwall suddenly going to get a lot more and London less? How are you going to find the income of every parent in every school and calculate accordingly? What if such calculations change?

Maireadplastic sensitive. Im a labour supporter my self and trade unionist. Its a sad day when we have a little light hearted reflection on our self and some of the people who vote the same way. I definitely know fellow middle class Labour supporters like this.

I have such mixed views when it comes to schools... I grew up on a pretty rough council estate. Went to the local primary where everyone went and absolutely loved every second of it. Around half of my class passed their 11+ and went off to grammar (including me) which was pretty average for each year group there. It wasn't until I had my own DC and became aware of ofsted ratings etc that I realised that that school was always in special measures. Yet it was such a nurturing and happy school. The kids were respectful to teachers and well behaved most of the time despite coming from an estate that even other people in the surrounding roads turned their noses up at. I also didn't realise that we were poor til I went to grammar school! I didn't have tutoring etc to get in there (I'm not sure people really did that then?) But was aware very quickly, that I would have to work that bit harder to keep up with a lot of the other girls who had parents that were very active in encouraging their education. I wouldn't say I was happy there but it did push me and I left with good results.
However when selecting a primary for my oldest I (shamefully) did get swept up in that competitive bs about 'best' schools and catchment areas etc... My DD got into the most sought after outstanding school and I was over the moon. It was extremely MC and naice yet after a year or so I was over it. The behaviour of the children was pretty poor. Communication about anything with the school was ridiculous. Parents who raised any issues about bullying were told by the HT that they would help them fill out the forms to send their DC to an alternative school if they were unhappy rather than actually addressing issues. Everything was about making the school look good from the outside and they didn't want people ruffling any feathers. The catchment area is literally meters from the school and houses in this catchment are approx 70-75k higher. We have since relocated to another part of the country and my DC attend a school that appears from the outside to be in a 'lower class area' yet it is such a happy and vibrant school and I have learnt my lesson about solely hanging my hat on Ofsted labels! It's a shame people are either outpriced or stretch themselves to breaking point to get into the catchment area of some of these schools, especially when some (not all obviously) are not actually that great once you get there. However after this huge ramble I'm not actually sure what the answer is!

Re homework. In Primary bar spellings,tables and reading homework has very little benefit so it's a moot point. Are you suggesting children shouldn't be encouraged to read,learn tables or spellings? In secondary they need to do homework to get good exam results so are kids not supposed to strive for these in the name of equality?

Magpie, you misunderstand me. I am talking about standards of behaviour such as being polite and courteous to your teacher, getting on with your work without fuss or backchat, not wandering around the classroom as they see fit or using mobile phones, doing makeup in class and so on. That has nothing to do with not having wealthy parents- that is behaviour I think should be expected of ALL students regardless of background- whether that be different socio-economic, race or religion. I don't think discipline needs to be more vigorous or harsh in schools with students who are from disadvantaged backgrounds, I think the standards expected should be exactly the same.

Schools with high standards of behaviour/good discipline allow teachers to get on with teaching without constant interruption to deal with misbehaviour.

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?

Unicorn231 for me the school environment in terms of how the students are treated, how the students treat everyone else, how happy the students area and how nurturing the environment is trumps grade performance any day for me. As I have said before I take OFSTED with a pinch of salt.

With high grades and level of education becoming the norm amongst young people it starts to lose its value as a commodity. I think a commodity employers are finding hard to supply is independent, reliable, well rounded, confident and happy education leavers. So for me a school that develops those traits and provides support to the students overall emotional development is worth far more than a school that excels in passing government accademic attainment tragets.