To say that the English system of school allocations seems bonkers?

[Edinburghgirlie]

I have been reading with interest the threads about school placements and potential appeals and find it bonkers. Here in Scotland you live in a catchment area and you automatically get a space at that school...no question. If you want to go to another school then you put in a placing request and if they have spaces unfillled by catchment children then they consider siblings already there and proximity to the school.
It’s very clear cut here, although it does lead to house prices being pushed up if they are in the catchment of a ‘desirable’ school. I really don’t envy people down south not knowing which school they will get in to.
AIBU in thinking the English system seems bonkers?

I'm in the US and just wanted to point out that they use lots of different systems here, not just 'are you in catchment'.

I'm in a small town and the only kids in our schools are those who have a parent living in the town limits (and most importantly paying property tax). So it is completely catchment based. If more houses are built they either build more capacity or move things around. Right now they're doing both. We do have spare capacity though - we don't have 30 kids per class, and when we start approaching that we build more capacity.

In the nearby city it is not done by catchment at all. There are two public schools and multiple elementary/middle schools - in many cases children are bused from one area to another, depending on which school their parents chose, and various other factors.

There are also various charter high schools, which allocate places by lottery to anyone within the state - for practical purposes you do need to live somewhere near enough to commute in daily, and you have to find your way in - no school buses. They do prioritise siblings.

There is also a state magnet boarding school to which anyone can apply, and they select by various criteria including SAT score, essay, interview, and whether they think the student will benefit from going there (so if you're coming from a terrible school district they're more likely to take you).

And this is just one state. Other cities/states allocate school places their own way.

Also it's not necessarily true that the richest towns have the best funded schools. In my state it's the schools in the poorest towns that are best funded - the poorest county spends $24,000 per student on education. I'm in a fairly well off county and in a very well off town, and we spent $13,000 per student. Our cost per student is pretty low by state standards, but our schools are consistently ranked high within the state and the country.

Last year our local school had 63 applications for a class of 30.

Out of 30 children, 26 were siblings.

There were children living in the same street as the school that didn’t get in!

To me, the major advantage is the certainty
That does sound appealing in Scotland if your rich enough to buy a house in a good catchment. Otherwise you have to take the local school no matter how bad it is, with the option of asking for better but council can just say no.

I would take the chance of a better school over the certainty of a bad one any day.

The English system might seem complicated for those outside the country but every parent is hoping to achieve the best school possible and the councils are trying to give as many people as possible a school they want. Its mostly very successful.

MN is just an echo chamber of a small minority.

You can get 3 bed houses for under £200k in catchment for Williamwood, which is one of the best state schools in Scotland. It’s not just for the rich.

I don't think there's the same difference in standards. I mean, there will be exceptions I'm sure, but in general the standard seems to be similar in most schools.

Where I'm from there's two private schools that are seen as 'the best', then the two catholic high schools (although that's nowhere near the same as it was when I was young) and then the other high schools are all very much of a muchness. We probably have a higher than average amount of placing requests locally because one of the highs has a Gaelic unit and another has a sports academy unit.

There's certainly not any of the "I do not want my kids to go to X school" that my BIL had when his were at school.

You can get 3 bed houses for under £200k in catchment for Williamwood, which is one of the best state schools in Scotland. It’s not just for the rich
Its all relative, in London that would be cheap in Scotland it probably only for the wealthy middle classes? The average house price for Glasgow is £151,780 for Renfrewshire its £138,642. So I am surmising a £200k plus house in East Renfrewshire is unsurprisingly an expensive house. QED the school catchment is pushing up house prices?

Did u mean to be so rude?! 200k is not expensive for Glasgow! Have you ever been? It's not all grim up North you know, 'No Mean City' stereotypes! There are many, many multi million pound houses here too, not just in England. I've never thought of there being an English privilege, but here it is, well and truly alive in it's patronising form on MN.
No wonder I voted yes.

wildbhoysmama
I wasn't rude, I was just quoting data off rightmove for the average house prices in the areas around a school that trixymalixy mentioned. I never mentioned anything about 'grim' or 'up north', like I said its all relative.

www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-71173073.html

3 Bedroom terraced house £170k in the catchment area for Williamwood High School. But because it’s Scotland, it’s for the “wealthy middle classes “ like investment bankers and QCs. Teachers and nurses live in tents up here

S0ph1a - This isn't a competition, obviously when you have an average there are higher and lower prices. In East Renfrewshire where Williamwood High School is the average house price is £253,180 (rightmove). Which is has been widely reported in local press as inflated due to the school catchment. Compared to surrounding areas this is a lot higher and obviously only wealthier people can afford inflated house prices.

It works totally fine for much of England. I live in a town near a major city so not in the sticks. Our closest school (which is also catchment school) is a mile away. It's a good school so I've no desire to trek further afield. This is true of both primary and secondary. Criteria is lac, catchment with sibling link, catchment, out of catchment with sibling link, out of catchment. In most years everyone gets a place. Occasionally when it's a high birth year or they've built another few hundred houses a few out of catchment without siblings don't get in and there's uproar, mainly as parents didn't put a second choice so get a school that isn't ideal. If you put a second choice you'd be almost guaranteed to get it. I've never heard of anyone here being offered third choice or none of their three choices. The issue is very much regional.

This is not quite correct. It entirely depends on where you live. In the London borough of Kensington and Chelsea only 68% got their first choice. This is hardly a vast majority

Most of England is outside London, and 68 % is a big majority.

My brother is in Cornwall, his kids had a choice of 2 school (secondary) as do all children in the town. For VI form they had the choice of one FE college.

It seems to me that there are positive and negatives of both systems and as is usually the case some people are better placed to take advantage
Mea cuppa I moved out of Glasgow to the suburbs so my kids go to one of the top state schools
No regrets has worked out brilliantly for my kids

Siblings ahead of catchment, please. It reduces school running and the stress which that causes to parents, and school parking and the stress which that causes to locals; see MN time and time again.

I disagree that siblings should have priority over catchment children. Siblings within catchment should be prioritised, perhaps, but siblings living outside of the catchment area shouldn't take priority over non-siblings within catchment.

I get that it's difficult for parents to have children at different schools, but it's their choice to send their older kids to a school out of catchment, so that's a risk they take. All kids should have the option of going to their catchment school.

“That does sound appealing in Scotland if your rich enough to buy a house in a good catchment. Otherwise you have to take the local school no matter how bad it is, with the option of asking for better but council can just say no.”

The performance of schools in Scotland very much correlates with the socioeconomics of the catchment area, most schools have a mixed catchment area and are fine, if you leave religious schools out the very good ones are all in affluent areas and the worst ones are in deprived areas...

That isn’t because people all move to go to good schools, it’s because school performance is about the pupils they get to start with.

@singingsands its not good is it when kids from the same street as a school do not get it.
Catchment first. Everytime.

That isn’t because people all move to go to good schools, it’s because school performance is about the pupils they get to start with.

I'd also add to this that parents attitudes and the teachers in the school also contribute to school performance.

I attended my catchment school with a shockingly bad reputation but still managed to leave with excellent exam passes due to my own abilities, my parents attitudes towards my education & school work and the teachers in the school being supportive. Yet many of my peers left at 4th year with barely a foundation pass (standard grade 5 or 6) for English & maths.

My DD moved schools when we moved area, her school for 1st & 2nd year is supposedly one of the best in Fife but only if the kid is naturally bright & is going to pass exams with minimal assistance from school - DD being dyslexic meant she needed support but for all the schools talk & plans that they were going to be putting in place this never materialised & whilst discussing choices for 3rd year they weren't even considering that she'd pass national 4 for many subjects... we moved during the school holidays between 2nd & 3rd year... she's now in 4th year & after great support at her new school is on course for National 5 in English, history & biology and national 4 for all other subjects.

So even "good" schools are not good for all pupils.

Yes it is probably the case that the top schools are better for bright kids which is a downside but I suppose as a parent the safest option is to move into a good catchment and then if there are issues address them

It's also a fair point that areas with high performing schools have higher house prices. You'll often see houses advertised as in the catchment for a certain school, and people do move to guarantee a place in the school of their choice.

Last year the P7 cohort in this area was surprisingly huge for some reason - when my daughter started P1 in 2010 there were 63 rather than the usual 40 - 45. So they had 2 classes of 25, plus a composite 1/2 with 12 P2s and 13 P1s. And shuffled classes further up the schools too. Other schools had large groups that year too.

When it came time to move to secondary, nobody who was outside catchment and didn't have a sibling already at the school got in. I heard on the mummy grapevine that there were something like 90 placing requests, and only about 9 children who didn't have a sibling already at the school got it - and those were mostly Catholic children who were in catchment but it had been assumed they'd transfer to the Catholic high school. Lots of very disappointed parents - but that is the risk you take with placing requests.

We usually have 2 P1 classes of around 25 but this year we have 55 coming into P1, so we will have 2 P1s and a P1/2.

Since I was little children have always gone to their local school. I don't understand the English system but had a friend who had a big carry on to get her child into the school of her choice because she perceived it to be a better school, I think schools in England are obsessed with ratings, whereas here you get HMI inspections every few years but nobody pays that much attention to them, There are good teachers in bad schools and bad teachers in good schools.

Walkingdead, prices in catchment are inflated compared to those out of catchment, I don’t disagree with that. But when you can buy a 3 bed family house for £140k in a really nice street and a 2 bed flat for well under £100k, it’s hardly only the super wealthy that can afford to get their kids into the best schools.

And once you buy those properties, unlike in England, you are pretty much guaranteed a place at those top catchment schools.

I’ll stick with the Scottish system thanks. You stick with yours.

Flowery: Sounds like it. Mind you, if as pps have said, the Scottish education system can afford enough staff to have average infant class sizes of 25, that’s obviously why it is workable.

Average infant class sizes aren't 25 -that is the maximum for P1 or composite! The average is 15.5 but that's very skewed by the "rural school of 2". Max for P2 and 3 is 30 and max for P4-7 is 33.

Every year the council publishes projected admissions data. So we got ours at school this year for the next 5 years based on birth rates, expected building etc and can use this to plan accordingly.

At this time of year we also get the expected numbers for next school year and how many teachers that allows us from which we then work out classes. In a school where that doesn't mean a set number of classes per year that does take some fiddling but it does work out well.

As a parent I'm glad I know where DS will go to for school without having to fuss about it. Nursery was different as they don't expand the nurseries to fit numbers so for a bit it looked like he wasn't getting any of our choices and could be placed anywhere (whether we could get there or not!). This sounds like how it is in England for school places.

I don't think the Scottish education system is perfect but I only started teaching when we were moving to CfE and didn't experience what went before. However, speaking to English colleagues their experience is no better. Oh and we do now have external testing for P1, 3 and 7 -starting this year! Before that many schools were using external testing which frustratingly wasn't aligned to CfE.

All this perception of ' terrible ' schools is just awful. You cannot base your opinion on where a school is: Many, many excellent schools are in deprived areas and many, many mediocre schools are in wealthy areas where kids just get tutors when needed!

I work in a secondary school in a deprived area which is excellent - the HMEI backs this up- but this is down to great pastoral care, teaching and learning and behaviour management, led by a strong, supportive senior management team. It is NOT all down to top exam results, it is about each pupil achieving their own potential, whether that be 5 Highers or a clutch of National 3/ 4s and an appropriate college place. All pupils are treated as individuals and encouraged to be rounded by being involved in not just purely academic pursuits.

All this ' My DC go to one of the best' etc, how do you measure this? I can only guess from many posters that it's based on top exam results. Education is about so much more, like I already said it cannot be distilled into a statistic. Problems arise when parents think their child will not do well looking at league tables and all want to send their children to certain schools. As a PP said it's to do with a child's home support, their own attitude, own potential AND a supportive school with good, supported staff.

I insisted my eldest go to his local comprehensive ( as opposed to the private school my ex DH wanted) as I wanted him to be rounded and learn with a variety of people around him and with his friends. He is thriving, highly achieving ( academic and sporting awards) and is on track to achieve exemplary exam results. My other DC may not be as academic but I am sure they will achieve their potential in a supportive environment.

The answer to all of this is to make ALL schools desirable through making them well resourced and make staff happy through good conditions, in other words government investment!!! And whilst I'm at it huge government investment in pre-school education ( think Scandinavia).

Many middle class edinburgh families use private schools. Why is this?

Criteria is lac, catchment with sibling link, catchment, out of catchment with sibling link, out of catchment.

IMHO this should be the criteria for every school