to think it would be better if everyone went to their local school.

[assumetheposition]

I'm talking hypothetically and not criticising anyone who sends their child to different school, given the current circumstances etc

BUT

on the whole, in theory, do you think giving parents a choice over school has made schools better, or has it just given those children with conscientious parents even more of an advantage as they will fight for the best schools.

This follows on from a walking to school thread but actually, lots of children at DSs school drive past lots of perfectly good schools to get to ours (no special measures, all good against the country average etc) making traffic a nightmare.

If everyone was forced to go to their local school wouldn't every school be better? Or would it just make house prices even more ridiculous in good catchments.

It may also involve banning independent and faith schools.

I'm no longer in London either.

tbh I don't have a solution, or have even heard anything resembling a possible solution. The lottery system kind of struck me for the fact that it would mean people of different backgrounds would be stuck together, but as some others have rightly said, siblings would be split up, you could end up across the city, it really wouldn't make sense.

Luckily for my dc's I am one of those parents who would go to great lengths to make sure they were in the best school for them. The education system needs a wholesale clean up I reckon but I do agree with milly that it isn't always about league tables, you absolutely have to have a good feel for the school and know your child can fit in there.

In principle, yes I agree with you if it could be achieved in a fair way. I would love to believe that this would lead to better standards all round. And I speak as someone whose children do a 20 minute each way car journey to a private school each day, so yes I do accept the hypocrisy of what I'm saying.

My parents were very committed socialists who sent me to the nearest school, and it was terrible. I was bullied mercilessly for being posh because I wore glasses (hardly posh - my dad was a factory worker and mum a cleaner) and was brighter than average. Nobody at my school aspired to do anything - it was an utterly sad, dreary place.

I don't want my dcs to go through that experience. At the moment they are at a lovely, warm, caring private junior school. Senior school will mean difficult choices - stay private, buy a house less than .5 km away from the local incredibly popular secondary (which will cost ££££££) or opt for the crumbling comp. round the corner. Personally I find all of those choices utterly depressing.

Also, what do we even mean by good schools? What people usually mean is that if some middle class kids are moved into a poorly performing school, that school will perform better in the league tables. Well, maybe the school will perform better because the middle class kids will get good results. That doesn't mean that the education provided to the working class kids in that school has actually improved at all.

Is there research to demonstrate that making schools more socially mixed makes exam success more socially mixed? Surely changing outcomes is the point of changing education.

I have turned down the "excellent" school within which a live to send my daughter to a "good" school with a different style of education that I think wil suit my dd2 better. I will now have to wait until near the end of March to see whether she will get a place - atm there are spare places...

dd1 went to the "excellent" nearest school but dd1 is not the same personality as dd2 so I would rather try to get what fits her and bus to school than just go to the nearest school cos thats where she has to go

Sirius - In schools in very deprived areas, the school day starts with teachers feeding some of their pupils from their own pockets.

The day runs its course with teachers having to do a lot of, non-curricular, tuition in socialisation for some, not all, of their pupils.

It's really not fair, on so many, many levels.

I, personally, think the lottery idea is madly cynical, and a way of out-sourcing society's ills onto the shoulders of parents and children.

But the "choice" thing is an illusion. And, while we have privilege archipelagoes and poverty ghettoes, the "local schools for local people" thing means that some children grow into adults who live their entire lives never seeing the world of opportunity lying just beyond the narrow circle of under-privilege.

Animula, I agree, there are much bigger things that need to be dealt with to solve the problems, not just having a mix of different backgrounds.

We more or less have that system in the town I currently work in and your theory doesn't really work here.

In my town, there are no secondary private schools within a 40 minute (minimum) commute of the town, so very few students go to private schools out of town. A few do, but it is very very few.

There is one Catholic school, that takes from all areas of town, and you do have to be a practising catholic to go there. Again, it affects very few students in town.

So overwhelmingly, most people tend to go to their local school. Obviously, if you live near the catchment of a bordering school, then some people try to get their children into the next catchment but it is rare to see children going to school out of catchment, unless they moved house and continued at their old school.

What we have here though is that the school with the most middle class catchment has the best results, and it generally does down to the school with the worst catchment (entirely current and ex council housing) getting the worst results (less than 10% 5 A-Cs, and in the bottom 20 of the country). Then, schools generally go up in exam results (and reputation) according to the mix of housing within that catchment. It generally works that the better the status of the catchment area, the better the results.

It is perhaps also affected by the fact that housing is not very mixed here... Anyone who lives here will agree that there are large Post war estates that take up big areas of catchments and these schools always have the worst results.

I don't know what the answer is, but I know the answer is not as simple as just banning all faith / private or grammar schools.

Don't agree at all! Here (Edinburgh) most kids do go to their local school; parental choice is not nearly as strong here. You can apply to non-catchment schools but if they're popular you are very unlikely to get in.

So, are they all equal? Absolutely not. As usual, schools in middle-class areas are better than schools in poor areas. Some schools in rich areas are not so good as many parents go private. Why would you expect any different?

I know I'm repeating myself now, but ...

I still think it is really wrong NOT to have the idea of a local school as your Ideal.

The lottery idea really, really sucks. Not least because deprivation is widespread against boroughs and regions, so won't be addressed by lottery systems.

And also because it still leaves the education system, which should be for education, being left to somehow make right a load of social and economic issues.

Unless that is addressed, disadvantaged children will still be at the bottom of schools, wherever the lottery takes them.

And parents and children will be shouldering the responsibility, individually, of issues that require a large, important, collective decision.

'choice' has been driving us round the twist for the last year or so... but at the end of it I'm glad we had some choice, I don't think the local secondary would have suited DD as well as the one she will be going to.

Of course that's speaking as a parent about my child. If I was an educationalist doubtless I'd be in favour of one-size-fits all schooling, places allocated within regions by lottery/sibling relationship.

Choice is an illusion in our parts, you can put whatever you like on your form but if its not your catchment you won't get in and if it is your catchment you still might not get in.

However, I am fairly anti-choice. Rather than busing/car-ring children here there and everywhere, splitting up siblings, increasing travel time, disrupting families and impacting on the health of our children, I would far rather real, proper effort were put into raising the standards of our least well performing schools.

MillyR has it spot on when she says that importing middle class children into failing schools doesnt actually raise the standard of education for those who are being failed.

I find the school system here virtually incomprehensible.

If I stand at my bedroom window I can see into the school across the road.

We were offered a place at a school almost 3 miles away. It was one of the reasons we went private (the private school is about 1/2 mile or so).

Looking forward to going home and sending DS to the local school and keeping my money.

My dd is going to the nearest comprehensive in September. It's one of those rare beasts - an 'outstanding' school (at least according to local parents and OFSTED) in a very deprived area, and with a very disadvantaged intake.

As a child from a middle-class, professional family my dd will be very much in a minority in this school.

Will let you know whether this turns out to be a good idea!

The school is an Academy by the way - used to be a failing secondary modern.

BTW, the reason I put her down for this school was because the next nearest good school (in a much more middle-class area) is hugely, hugely over subscribed and I was worried about her not getting in anywhere. So yes - choice is an illusion. You play the game and you take the best you can get, even if it's not your ideal.

I'm not sure that it's quite as simple as youbadkitten and MillyR suggest where middle class children in failing schools are concerned. Some middle class children bring with them middle class parents who are prepared to be involved in school life in a way that the school may not be used to - and that can have an impact on all sorts of things, from staff morale to children's reading. So maybe it does make a difference to more than a few individuals.

I live in the next street to 2 primary schools. Both have low intakes of 20 in the first and 35 in the second children per year. This is because they only run at 50% capacity and the only children that go there are from the local (predominantly council)estate (2-10minute walk) You get no one other than locals choosing the school.

They are both "failing" schools. I did not put either school on our choices, opting instead for schools 0.8m, 1.9m and 4.5m away. If we do get our "local" school I would turn it down and home ed if needed.

The schools and staff themselves are not the problem. But you walk past the gates at dropping off/picking up time and it is very stereotypical - statement dogs tied up outside, every parent smoking and swearing, fights (between children and parents). There is also a very low number that care about education (the majority leaving school without any qualifications themselves) and therefore do very little to help their children. I may be a snob but I dont want my child going to a school with parents and children like that.

If we had to do local school I'd be stuffed - I've been lucky to be rehoused by the council here but would be devastated if I couldnt have some kind of control over my child's education. Statistically they are the most likely to fail (white english boys to a single parent living in council accomodation) so I will chose the "best" school I can to try and stop them proving the government right.

So IMO, judging on my circumstances, YABU

well I'm not sure what you'd do in our town where there are simply not enough spaces in senior schools for children in the town, let alone children in surrounding villages for who it is also their "local" school.

What of someone who lives dead centre between two (very close) schools - which one do they go to? Or in this town all of the children who live in the NW side of town who have just one school "local" to them - there simply aren't enough spaces at that school to service all those children.

And in our town with just the 3 senior schools unless ou are very lucky and get your child into the Church school in the next town there is absolutely no way of a middle class parent sending their child to a school that is mostly used by middle class pupils - they are all mixed.

I agree with your sentiment that it was easier all round when everybody went to their local school. Of course there are exceptions and reasons why but the current system of 'choice' is a myth that leaves many people feeling disappointed. At least when we all went to our local school you didn't get ridiculous situations like children having to spend over an hour on 2 different buses to get to the school they were allocated. I just wish all schools were good enough that people didn't feel they had to engage in the current bunfight to get their child into the 'best' school. Let's face it the current system does not work for many people. We do need to accept that parental involvement has a huge affect on the results a child achieves so middle class areas where education is seen as important will always do better than large council eststes where most families have no-one who works and do not value education. That isn't to say that motivated children would not achieve here.
Rural areas generally have less choice as schools are further apart and travelling more difficult. Is there the most competition in heavily populated areas? There are more schols within a 10 mile radius that can be considered.
I may be wrong but I thought that in USA students are bused to schools so all schools have a mix of rich/poor. Does this work?

Purpleturtle, is there any evidence that the presence of a few middle class children improve a school? I don't agree with parental involvement in the school day anyway, other than as parent governors.

"But you walk past the gates at dropping off/picking up time and it is very stereotypical - statement dogs tied up outside, every parent smoking and swearing, fights (between children and parents)."

This is true of the primary my three children currently go to - but it's still got an 'Outstanding' Ofsted report and is hugely over subscribed.

I think the difference is that the poorest children at my kids school are not primarily from white English families - they're from immigrant families, and come into school with more positive attitudes to education.

When I had to choose primaries I looked the two closest. Both took children from a very deprived area, but one had a 70% white intake and the other had an 80% non-white intake. I chose to send my children to the latter school, not just because it made a very good impression on me when I went to visit, but because I wanted my children educated alongside others from cultures which value education.

Tittybangbang - spot on with the english/immigrant I reckon. Here they are 100% white english with very negative attitudes to education, police, council etc. It may be stereotyping, but it is very much true round here.

In my town the heavy immigrant population we have work bloody hard at education and menial jobs. They have a sense of pride and wanting to achieve - something that all the "locals" seem to do is bitch about, slagging them off for taking their jobs/houses etc. When they wouldnt take a cleaning/mcds job ever.

I wonder if you have a point, OP.

Our local school is well known to be frequented by families with social problems, therefore I wouldn't want to send ds there.

Instead he goes to one about an eighth of a mile further away in the opposite direction.

What I'm thinking though is that if schools were just allocated on the premise of living nearest, the housing situation might be affected also...but it can't work like that.

The local school is on an estate and the estate itself is where the social-problem-families live.

Not all by any means but there appears to be a different culture in evidence in the area.
It's a culture I feel supremely uncomfortable in the midst of, having grown up on an estate and having never fitted in...I offend these people and they offend me.
I also dislike the general aggression and smoking in the playground.
If we had to go there I would just move again or home educate.

It isn't the children that bother me, it's their parents...some are probably fantastically nice people but the impression I get of most is not that.

It would be nice if some of these immigrants got rehoused into my area. Sadly they last a matter of weeks before they are harrassed off the estate. Theres a couple in my street who are lovely, and seem to be left alone but the house on the corner has been let and relet by the council twice in the 8m I have lived here

btw if it makes any difference, the culture I am describing is not race related...not other race, should I say. Nearly everyone within a 5 mile radius of here is white.

(which bothers me, but that's another thread)

It is a good idea.

Here children go to the nearest primary, and then the "level" of school they move on to is recommended by the teacher.

There are three levels-top being equivalent to grammar,and if you are recommended then you must be given a place.

Here we also have a comprehensive & that is the one that has twice as many applicants as places.

It is a small town so all the schools have a mix of backgrounds.