Surge in school admission lotteries??

[Tansie]

here

Makes me shudder and be grateful that my two are safely in their naice, leafy, MC comp, one that I got them into by buying a house in the catchment.

"The head of one major chain of academies said it was no longer “inherently fair or good for our society” to let parents move into the catchment area of a leading school to get a place."

So, the only DC who will stand any chance of 'getting the good jobs' will be from a private or academically selective school, in other words. Until that glaring inherently unfair loophole is closed, I shall do what I can for my DC. FGS don't take that away, the only thing that us less well-off parents can do to increase our DC's life chances! And no, I have no problem whatsoever with my DC sitting in classes with 'forrin' DC, working class DC or managed SEN DC (DC whose SEN is being properly attended to so the DC can participate in mainsteam education before I get flamed for that)- providing they're all singing from the same hymn sheet in terms of values. As are the DC at my DC's school. What I do have a problem with is that my DC's academic band could condemn them to a school miles away in a grotty area with a disastrous disciplinary record.

All this may do is 'dumb down' all schools since it has been shown that you actually only need a couple of drop-kick DC in a class to wreck the lesson for the rest. Sure, there are potentially such DC at my DC's school but they are utterly in the minority and their behaviour is rigorously managed.

I am glad that one can still effectively buy that. And yes, there are council houses in the catchment, and small 3 br flats. Though yes, I also concede the housing is largely 3-4 br privately owned and most parents in the area are here because of the school.

[Retropear]

But Blu most small towns are like that ie a total mix ranging from lawyers to fsm all using the same pre- schools,library,toddler groups,community schools etc.

[DraggingDownDownDown]

Got first choice. Big relief!

[Blu]

DraggingDown: excellent news!

Retro, yes, that makes sense. Where are the leafy comps leafed up by house prices? In big suburbs of medium sized towns?

[cory]

Tansie, you are aware, I hope, that a lot of the students at the more academic Hampshire sixth form colleges do come from these non-leafy urban schools which you hold in such abhorrence? A fair few of them have poor parents as well.

Just wanted to give you time to brace yourself against the shock.

Your poor dc may well end up mixing with these feral savages one day. It's a tough life.

[WooWooOwl]

There would be no need for banding if all parents were engaged in their children's education and valued education. Or if all schools were able to effectively deal with negative behaviour because they had strong parental support so the measures they put in place actually worked.

I can completely see where Tansie is coming from. Why should some parents be denied a reasonable level of choice of school to compensate for the fact that some parents aren't invested in education and do not manage their children's behaviour?

Where is the benefit in narrowing the gap between high achieving comps and lower achieving comps if it doesn't raise achievement for all children, and instead just raises results for certain schools because they are given parents they can actually work with?

[AmberTheCat]

There would be no need for banding if all parents were engaged in their children's education and valued education. Or if all schools were able to effectively deal with negative behaviour because they had strong parental support so the measures they put in place actually worked.

I agree. But clearly there are parents who aren't as engaged in their children's education as we would like, and there are schools who don't enjoy as much parental support as others. But the point here (and I'm always astonished and rather alarmed that so many people don't seem to get this) is that having disengaged parents isn't the children's fault. Isn't it a caring society's role to try to compensate as best they can for the disadvantage faced by these children (and to try to help the parents to do a better job, of course)?

And I agree that the aim of any changes to an education system should be to raise achievement for all children. One of the ways to do that is to ensure schools have a better social mix. Children with engaged parents are likely to do well wherever they are. Children will less engaged parents will do better in an environment where their peers value learning. Therefore more socially mixed schools are likely to raise achievement overall.

[Retropear]

I think that too to be honest.

You only have to look at China where the kids of labourers are outstripping the kids of lawyers here.

The difference is work ethic and parenting.

We don't seem to reward that here,instead we criticise it but some think we should spread around the very parents criticised so other parents can continue to sit back and do buggar all as regards parenting and education.

Utter madness.

[WooWooOwl]

Isn't it a caring society's role to try to compensate as best they can for the disadvantage faced by these children

Not when it's done at the expense of other children, no.

We have the pupil premium already to try and compensate, if that isn't working then change that system, don't use other children to do the job of parents.

I completely agree that it isn't the children's fault if they grow up in a disadvantaged environment, it isn't the fault of children that grow up in average families either.

Schemes like this just seem to want to bring the top down rather than the bottom up.

[Retropear]

Sorry but why should the kids with engaged parents have a harder time because other parents don't step up to the bar?

It's not their fault either.

I've been that kid and it's shit.

[WooWooOwl]

I also think that banding on ability is a bit of a red herring.

It's not a lack of academic ability that causes the problem, and I doubt that it's a lack of academic ability in an average number of pupils that causes some parents to want to avoid certain schools like the plague.

Personally, I am more than happy for my children to be friends with people who have less academic ability than they do, as long as they are at a school that can still offer a full and stretching curriculum because they have enough children to make up decent top sets. It's attitude to education that matters, and it's perfectly possible for children who aren't particularly academic to display positive behaviour and a good work ethic, and to have parents that value and support education.

[WooWooOwl]

Children with engaged parents are likely to do well wherever they are.

This is an argument that is often used, especially in grammar school debates, and while I can see why people use it, I completely disagree.

Plenty can happen in a child's teenage years to make them rebel and stop following their parents influence, and if the influence of their peers is a negative one then it doesn't take much for a teenager to take the wrong road.

But if the influence of their peers is a generally positive one, where drug use and access to alcohol etc is limited, then they are much more likely to achieve well at school, despite and relationship issues with parents.

Some children are easily led by their peers, I'd rather my children were led by classmates that want to succeed in life (even if not academically) instead of by those that have little aspiration.

[AmberTheCat]

But in order for schools to have enough children to 'make up decent top sets' they have to, em, have enough children to make up decent top sets! And if some schools have a disproportionate number of those children, it leaves a bright child in a less well regarded school without those peers.

I don't believe that every child in a school needs to come from an engaged family in order for that school to create an ethos that supports learning, but it sure helps to have a decent number of them. So surely the logical answer is to find ways to spread those families around, and likewise to spread around the less engaged families, helping all schools to develop a positive ethos. The children from engaged families aren't disadvantaged, because they'll still have a good number of like-minded children around them, but the children from less engaged families have a better chance of going to a school that will help them to overcome their disadvantages and thrive.

[mellicauli]

To me, the defining characteristic of being middle class is to place a very high importance on education. So, whatever system is in place where people have the opportunity to bend the system to their advantage they will.

Instead of moving from catchment to catchment, they will move to areas that are more homogenous and have level difference between a level 5 and a level 1 (eg out of somewhere mixed like Luton to somewhere like Harpenden).

I don't think that helps anyone and leaves the people who can't afford to leave in the same (if not worse) predicament and everywhere just ends up getting more and more siloed.

I would prefer to tackle the problem at source: take out the small proportion of kids who cause trouble out of mainstream schools altogether, for the benefit of the majority. We then need to invest a lot of money re -engaging these children

[Blu]

To me, the defining characteristic of being middle class is to place a very high importance on education.

Placing a very high importance on education is also a defining characteristic of many other groups - e.g refugees, 1st generation migrant Jamaican parents, aspirational working class.

A characteristic of many middle class people is that they have the means to get what they want.

[Blu]

WooWoo owl - the thing is it is sometimes the very schools that people become desparate to get their kids into that are full of wealthy young people using a lot of expensive recreational drugs. I know of at least one school which m/c parents tutor, move and rent for that has a well known and longstanding drug problem, the epicentre of which is the moneyed mc young things.

You just can't generalise.

However...well to do famililes have far more resources to rescue their children from an early brush with law, drugs or drink.

[WooWooOwl]

Amber, that's a fair point, but at least at the moment the parents of a bright child have some choice over which school they send their bright child too.

If a school doesn't have enough children to make up a decent top set, then that is likely to be the fault of the other parents using that school. And while that's awful for the bright children that get stuck in that school, it is not the responsibility of other children to make up for the failings of those other parents.

Blu - you are right about recreational drug use in well regarded schools. That's certainly what it was like in my private school. But it was significantly worse in the surrounding comps, their school gates were where the private school kids would go to buy their drugs. And it wasn't unheard of for the parents at those schools to be in support of what their children were doing. Us private school kids would desperately be trying to hide the fact that we were stoned from our parents, and the parents at the failing comp would be there congratulating themselves on the fact that we all wanted to be at their house because we could smoke there.

[Blu]

WooWoo - whereas at DS's non-posh S London comp with a high % on FSM there is no such drug problem.

I'm not saying not one person in the school smokes dope but there is no dealing at the gate, no established and persistent issue within the school.

[cory]

So because dh and I cannot afford to buy a house in the leafy areas that make up the Thornden catchment, we must be uninterested in education and our children not fit for the OP's dc to mix with. Charming!

[WooWooOwl]

It doesn't happen at my ds's comp either, so I know you can't generalise.

But the point is that parents usually have valid reason for avoiding certain schools.

I think if a lottery were to come in across the country in it would do nothing except drag good schools down and increase the numbers using private schools, as well as making grammar schools even harder to get into.

In this area there are plenty of parents that don't bother entering their very capable children into the 11+ for the local super selectives because there is an excellent comprehensive with a good intake nearby. That would definitely change if our catchment was merged with some others.

[Tansie]

OK, point by point

-aga the story about the Australian situation illustrates that the idea that if you take a DC from a chaotic, neglectful background and place him in a 'good' school- guess what? the 'goodness' doesn't necessarily wear off on him. However, place a well-behaved, disciplined DC in a class full of wild DC running amok, and that DC is highly unlikley to thrive.

• tiggy - you need to be on MN more if a post stating that an OP is glad to have at least some control over which state school their child attends 'leaves you speechless'. I'd also like to see the stats re fair banding 'success'. I thought this was a recent thing? You'd need to have five years of it to judge, well, fairly!
  

-fiscal -regarding Th and SEN, read my first post. Q: "I have no problem ..with my DC sitting in classes with.. DC managed SEN DC (DC whose SEN is being properly attended to so the DC can participate in mainsteam education before I get flamed for that)- providing they're all singing from the same hymn sheet in terms of values. As are the DC at my DC's school." And yes, but as I've also stated, I'm not and can't be in the business of deciding for other parents what lengths they'll go to to get their DC into a school that suits them; I can only worry about my own.

• sovery- You say "I disagree fundamentally with the principle that just because your parents are middle class and/or have money, you do not have discipline issues". I have nowhere stated that. My DC's school has behavioural issues (and like I said the odd 'drugs bust'!) but they're dealt with. So by and large, the school presents a disciplined environment in which learning can take place.
  

• blu - re: why parents of higher ability DC might not want their DC to 'risk' an 'unpopular, under subscribed school'-you say because parents of high ability kids can be reassured that there will be a fair representation of similar ability kids, perhaps? But maybe it isn't always going to be about that? Maybe it's to do with community, proximity, shared values etc etc, rather that say a bunch of CAT scores?
  

I would also like to add that as it increasingly being demonstrated in the press, 'London' is actually a separate entity to much of the rest of the country. In London you get extreme wealth and poverty side-by-side; you have many secondary schools really geographically close; you have selective schools with will definitely keep out the able-but-without-committed-parents.

• potato- 'sobriquet'.. hang on, yep, 3 clicks on Google reveals what that word means. If you think about it, my DC go to the school, not me. I wrote the OP, not them. Please don't go confusing a degree of articulacy with snobbery.
  

• cory- PS is one of the largest and most academically successful 6th form colleges in the country. Its intake is from a wide variety of secondaries, however the one thing all the DC have in common is 'they passed the not insubstantial entrance requirements'. To get into PS you have to have demonstrated a reasonably high level of commitment to your education. Therefore, yes, guess what, my DC will be mixing with DC from other committed families. I object to the idea that I find 'other schools abhorrent' - I have not said that. I have just stated that I am glad that there still exists the possibility of getting my DC into my preferred school via positive action rather than being forced by the political expediencies of lotteries/fair banding to attend any old school that has vacancies for them in order to make it all 'fair'.
  

• amber- sorry, but I don't see it as my DC's role in life to try and drag the standards of someone else's DC up. I also disagree with that old adage (sorry, potato) that 'children with engaged parents will do anywhere'. Sure, their chances are better than those with disengaged parents but you'd need to ask 'how far does that engagement go?' Many seem to think just saying 'I want my kid to go to a good school' is enough; personally, I prefer not to risk sending my DC to a school where the critical mass of the disengaged swamps the rest.
  

-retro and woowoo- thanks for your input. The one thing I'd question is the need to have enough in the 'top set'. I believe you need to just have 'enough' from MC- valued families (be they 1st generation migrants, refugees, Jamaican (?) etc), so the middle and bottom 'sets' also contain engaged, attentive, disciplined DC. Like what happens at my DC's school.

[cory]

"- cory- PS is one of the largest and most academically successful 6th form colleges in the country. Its intake is from a wide variety of secondaries, however the one thing all the DC have in common is 'they passed the not insubstantial entrance requirements'. To get into PS you have to have demonstrated a reasonably high level of commitment to your education. Therefore, yes, guess what, my DC will be mixing with DC from other committed families"

note that it's not the families who have to pass the entrance requirements, though, but the individual student

thankfully, it is still possible for gifted and dedicated students to do well in GCSE's and A-levels even if there is little support to be had from their families

some of my best students have come from families very hostile to education

otoh I know of several highly educated and committed families where the children themselves lack either academic ability or the interest in education required to do well in their studies

their families won't be able to talk them into higher education

it's not just where you come from: it's who you are

[Tansie]

So, cory- why meddle with lotteries and fair banding if it doesn't matter if your parents care about your education or not? As you seem to think that parental input is such a negligible part in the overall success of a school why not leave it just as it is, eh? And in doing so, allow me to make the moves necessary to send my DC to the school I want them to go to.

tiggy- sorry, can't really engage if those are the things that 'stunned' you.

[cory]

Tansie, afaik nobody has suggested that the banding should specifically select badly behaved or disengaged children to send to more MC areas.

Your aversion to the scheme is clearly based on the idea that children who do come from poorer areas (i.e. children like mine) are bound to be badly behaved and uninterested in their studies. This is the view that a fair few of us on this thread find shocking.

It isn't that you wouldn't want my dc bused in because you actually know anything about their behaviour or academic record (pretty good, as it so happens). It's because you are making assumptions about them- and their friends- based on nothing more specific than a postcode.

[Tansie]

Oh dear. This is my last post here. cory - no, I have not in any way said children who do come from poorer areas... are bound to be badly behaved and uninterested in their studies. YOU said that because it sounds all dramatic and allows you to feign .

I am not in the slightest bit concerned about whether you're rich or poor.

However, much research demonstrates that DC from poorer/chaotic/abusive/neglectful backgrounds tend to be more disruptive than DC from backgrounds that value the classically 'MC ethos' of caring, deeply, about education.

I feel sorry for you that your family situation forces your DC to attend a shite school (whaddya mean, you didn't actually say that?! Nor did I say the first statement but you've deduced that from what I've said, anyway, eh?) but bussing my DC in to remedy that a) won't, and b) will only serve to screw up my DC's education, too.

I am glad that there still exists the means to effect the education you want for your DC, one way or another.