Catchment areas should they exist / are they fair?

[Vicky777]

Hi mumsnetters,

This is the first time i have started a thread and i really need your opinions.
I am doing an Access to Teacher Training course and i have to do an education project, i have chosen catchment areas. Should they exist and are they fair? As this is a subject personal to my family at the moment. I need as many different opinons as possible to put this assignment together so any help would be grately appreciated. I am looking forward to hearing from you all:)

There are lots of different types of catchment areas, or rather, of settling the matter of admission within a fixed geographical location. Is there one type in particular you are looking at? And do you really mean catchment area, or are you also thinking about the unofficial catchment areas that areas as distance criteria (which is the most common way of sorting out school admission) is applied?

Eg. Where we live has catchment areas, within which a range of distance criteria are applied. This is because several of the schools are clustered together, with whole swathes of the area not close to a school at all, so it's a way of carving up the area, so that all is within the footprint of the school.

Sadly, the existence of the catchment area doesn't guarantee those living within it a place at the local school, since distance criteria are applied within the catchment. So in reality, the existence of a catchment makes no difference. Some children still end up having to trek off to a school elsewhere that has places. ie. not their local school.

People do tend to like their children attending local schools at primary level.

And some parents end up having two children at separate schools, since the sibling criteria only applies if you are within the catchment area. so, if you have moved between child one and child two, you're a bit stuffed. But I can see that would work to stop "rent for a year, get one in, get them all in" carpet-bagging in "popular" schools.

Lastly, here it's not a catchment area, per se, it's a priority area. Which means it may be far from what you want views on.

Catchment areas vary a lot. Surrey doesn't have them, so maybe you should see their criteria (sorry a few schools in surrey do have kind of catchments). Also Siblings come before distance here (good for me as DC1 got in although we live a long way out, so others can follow). There are also areas with catchments, but also Grammars which cream some off.

Up until applications for 2010 reception starters, Bristol had a strange arrangement where about 6 of the most over-subscribed primary schools had "areas of prime responsibility" or APRs and children within the APR were higher on the admissions criteria than children outside the APR. Most of the time the schools didn't manage to take all of the children within their APR, but at least parents had a better idea of their chances of getting in.
Since removing the APRs there are pockets of houses which are not close enough to any school to be offered places. These children now tend to be offered places in schools with problems, which are quite a distance from their home, often having to walk past their preferred school on the way.
Having said that, admitting on straight line distance does seem fairer than whether you are inside or outside the lines on a funny shaped map, (which in some cases discriminated on a demographic basis - ie the posh houses were in and the council estate was out!) Ideally every child would go to their nearest school and all schools would be of an equally good standard - but that, I think, is a long way off...

thats an interesting subject for me.
is there anything on the internet that shows the catchment postcodes for each school?

You need to look on each Local Authority's website I think. When we had APR's the maps were on the council's website.

This question is more complicated than I realised. I have just had a quick look at out local authority (in England) to see their rules about admissions. The first thing that they point out is that it depends on what sort of school you are talking about: there are Community, Voluntary Controlled, Academies, Foundation and Voluntary Aided schools. Only the first two have LEA-controlled admissions, the rest have their own admissions system. So, in theory, you could be in catchment for more than one school. Also, the admissions policy of one school could have an impact on the admissions of another.

I think the system for our town is quite good: they have designated catchment areas, so everyone is in catchment for somewhere and there is none of this falling-in-the-gap nonsense that you get when operating on the circles of nearest-the-school-gate. They have also drawn the catchments to go with the geopraphy of the town so that every school has a 'bad' estate and every school has a 'good' estate. The schools tend to get good results (above national average IIRC) despite there being several indepedents in the area.

I think that catchments should exist, purely so that each child will definitely have a school to go to. But there should also be a preference system so that parents can try to exercise an option if they want to, for two reasons. Firstly, different schools suit different children and your local school isn't always the best fit. Secondly, if there is a captive clientele then there is no pressure on the school to aim for excellence.

We have the falling-in-the-gap nonsense senua refers to, at secondary level. We live 1.2 and 1.7 miles from the nearest and next-nearest secondary schools - this year, the furthest child to get into the second-nearest on proximity only was 0.9 miles away, so no chance there; the furthest to get into the nearest was 1.26 miles away. But last year it was less, so we really have no idea whether DD will get into the nearest school when the time comes. Children who don't get into one of these schools end up allocated to an undersubscribed school on the other side of town. Alternatives are the local grammar schools, going private, or taking a gamble on appeals. It's hideous. Meanwhile, half a mile up the road is the boundary of the catchment area of a school in the next local authority, so people living there are guaranteed a place at a specific school.

The rather odd complicating factor is that the area affected by this gap is mostly affluent, so anything that anyone tries to do is immediately condemned as pushy middle class parents trying to get the best for their children at the cost of everyone else. No, we just want the option of sending our children to the nearest non-selective state school, rather than having uncertainty hanging over us for years on end (DD is only in Yr 2!)

It is such a tricky issue.

I live in a rural village / market town now, so of course for us, catchment areas are necessary. It would be impossible for me to drive 5 miles to the next town to send my child to school.

But, in the town I came from each school had a designated catchment area, and the catchment school wasn't necessraily your closest - for example, I had to drive past the local junior school to get to my catchment junior school. Also, the town I lived in was a post war / 'growth' town, so had areas of large council housing. These were the worst schools, and most people tried to avoid sending their children there. Then there was the big modern estate, where everyone wanted to live, and not enough schools and everyone moaned because their child could not go the local school.

I am also unsure of whether siblings should take priority over children in catchment. I know of a few people who chose to send their eldest children out of catchment, but then did not get their subsequent children into that school (as at the time, siblings did not have priority) and boy did some of those parents moan, but then I think you knew that when you applied out of catchment that you were taking a risk. And further, if the sibling takes a place from a catchment child, then the catchment child has to be driven to a different school and this increases transport and so on...

Of course, in an ideal world everyone would just send their child to their local school, and catchment schools would be made of different socio economic areas. This would reduce traffic in the mornings, be better for the environment and better for making local communities. But unfortunately, in my town at least, the socio economic areas are not mixed, and the best schools are in the best catchment areas and the worst schools are in the worst areas, so everyone scrums to get into the best schools and then moans when they can't.

Not sure what the answer is tbh.

My idea would only work for secondary schools but I think comprehensives should work on a quota basis. A certain number of children at each ability level at each school. You'd have some flexibility in which school you apply to but would usually go to the nearest.

I actually don't have problem with catchment areas per se as you have to have some way of fair admissions.
What I do find frustrating is the lack of planning with regards to birth rates - we live in a village that has one primary - next nearest is a 3 mile drive away (no buses and difficult to walk to). The catchment for our local school is quite rightly the village boundaries but because of an increased birth rate for past few years - children within the catchment have had to go elsewhere as they haven't provided the extra class capacity - they have 4 years to plan for this and yet each year there are frustrated families.

Changebagsandgladrags - there is a school near here that does something along those lines. It's not in the LA within which we live, but actually in the one which also has the defined catchment for the one I mentioned earlier.

Let's see if I can get this right ... the children who apply are tested. They are banded into ability ranges based on those tests. The 40 (I'm actually not sure of the number) closest in each ability band get into the school.

We live in a village which for secondary school is in the catchment area for a school which isn't the nearest. I really don't understand why this is - surely it makes more sense for children living here to go to the nearest school.

I spoke to one of my friends about it and she said that there keep being threats to change it but that people complain. Both schools are "good" although only one has a sixth form.

DS only in year 2 so suspect plenty of time for change before he is at secondary level. Would be interested to see how many children don't get a place at their preferred school and whether they are in catchment or not.

We have a weird situation at the moment as we are waiting to hear if we are within the catchment area of a primary school. Apparently they will only accept applications from one side of our street (e.g. odd numbers yes, even numbers no) and the secretary couldn't remember which side
I figured we'd be fine because we are on the side closest to the school but she said that wasn't necessarily true

"My idea would only work for secondary schools but I think comprehensives should work on a quota basis. A certain number of children at each ability level at each school"

The local GDS school which has become a state academy has that very admission policy, will be interesting to see their results over the next 5 years.

We live in a town with one secondary school.

The school we have to send our children to is a failing school - it is back on special measures (again).

We have Hobson's choice - one crap school.

I think that this is a disgraceful situation. The state has said that the school is failing but then wont allow us to send our children elsewhere.

Catchment means nothing - we dont want to be caught by this school.

It works quite well in Scotland.

This is an interesting topic for a project Vicky. In Scotland, we have designated catchment areas for each school eg a fixed geographical area, usually bounded by a major road, river, canal or railway line. You are guaranteed a place in your catchment school. It may not be your nearest school but I cannot think of a single instance where you would have to pass your nearest school to attend your catchment school.

If you would like an alternative school, you apply to your local LEA in writing, and they will allocate a place if one is available. If a number of people apply, priority is given to children with a sibling at the chosen school.

At secondary level, in my town, I cannot see any other system working because our secondary schools also serve a surrounding hinterland and that would mean that the town children got first choice and the rural children got what was left.

I do think it is a fairer system than shortest walking distance or allocating places on a radial basis. In many towns, you could draw, say, a 2 km circle around each school and some houses might be in 3 or 4 such circles while others are in none.

You might want to check out Brighton in your research. Despite all the media hype about their introducing a lottery for allocation, what they actually did was replace shortest walking distance with catchment areas, with the lottery used to allocate in dual school catchments.

I don't suppose that you will ever get an entirely satisfactory system and in many areas things are further complicated by diffent types of school eg faith schools, single sex schools and academically selective schools and academies, none of which we have in my town.

although catchment areas is not a perfect solution it is probably the best of a phenomenal hobsons choice of methods.

ability banding seems too easy to engineer (for instance, if you know your local sink comp hs a super abundance of low-ability intake - you tell your kids to flunk the tests to give them a chance to go elsewhere..)

lotteries can mean people not being able to send their kids to the school next door

Catchments mean that parents in the catchment of a bad school have no choice but move or pay for privat school if they want their kids to get a good education. but really - the problem here is that there are bad schools, not that the selection criteria are duff.

our local school has just been turned into an academy because it is rubish...the parents with heir kids there are waiting to see how it is with much anxiety - obviously they are the ones that oculdn't move.

Vicky,

There are arguments both for and against catchment areas. You simply have to weigh up the pros and cons.

You also need to define 'fair' and the extent to which schools are responsible for fairness.

For high schools we have feeder primaries which take priority over catchment area. My main gripe is that the catchment area for our local high school includes children from miles away and yet people who live overlooking the school on the wrong side of the road are out of the catchment area.

Incidentally, the catchment area includes quite well-offish villages some considerable distance away, and yet the local area includes some of the poorest bits of Europe.

We will not be going to our local high school, moving into the catchment area is a no-brainer without the feeder primary.

An obvious point, but no-one else has made it.

Most areas don't have catchments, in the sense of an established area from which they draw their intake. Catchment areas in this sense do not exist for the vast majority of schools in Britain. This is because there is a legal limit to class sizes, so a school cannot have a catchment because a place cannot be guaranteed to every child within that catchment.

I think most LEAs call them priority areas, or something, and operate distance criteria. Obviously, that is not an issue with "less popular" schools.

The trouble with 'fair banding' is that that suboptimal schools can find themselves with practically no DCs in Bands A and B as no parent of a higher achieving DC put their DC's name down for that poor school!

I like catchments because it means the DCs play with the same DCs at home as they do at school, more or less. There can be more of a sense of shared community.

However, I also like catchments because by paying over the odds (ie being in a position to do so) we can ensure our DSs go to an outstanding comp, and one of the reasons it is outstanding is because all the DCs there come from 'good' homes thus are school-ready and know how to behave at school- and all live within a 3 mile circle of the school. Note I avoided the coded short-hand: they are Middle Class. This arrangements completely excludes the DC of less well off parents, and obviously that is neither fair nor right, but I work within the system as it stands, I and many others, and at least I'm being honest!

there's also the issue of specialist schools - we are in the catchment areas for either an art school or a sports school. luckily we can currently get them in either - but my children hate art and are extremely sporty. Shouldn't preference be given to children who can show an aptitude towards any specialism?

i thnk there should be catchment areas (so you know broadly where you stand) and that the distance rule should be got rid of. buts thats because we are some distance from the schools and i don't see why my children should be disadvantaged because of that (council ran out of money, so hasn't built the planned one where we live).

many of the schools round here give preference to children with special educational needs - till recently i thought this only affected a small minority but was suprised by press coverage recenlty that said it was one in five or four was classified this way.