A thread to discuss state selective education.

[Hakluyt]

I am conscious that this debate is clogging up other threads in ways which are not helpful and must be annoying for those threads' authors. I tried to channel the debate to a separate thread yesterday, but got it badly wrong. I hope this will work better, and will be allowed to stay.

Wordfactory
Och the proof that people flock to grammars is that ... People flock to grammars
No, that is not evidence.
If you give people a bad option sec mod and a good option grammar , they will choose the good option.

You are more literate and better informed than that.
You said that many in comp areas want grammar schools brought in - I assume you have evidence.

I think more look ahead after a baby is born and consider housing options and any move to tie in before starting school.People rarely live in one place forever these days.

talkin the non-catchment selectives leave no secondary mods in their midst.

And like it or lump it, they are some of the most applied for schools in the UK.

Parents want their DC to attend. Build another and parents will apply. Tell me I'm wrong.

But now I must go.

Horribly early start to get to Manchester for a meeting tomorrow morning to discuss dystopian fantasy with R4.

Which book are you ?
could never decide whether I preferred the book or the film, I guess the book on principle

This isn't an adaptation of the books.

I'm discussing a pitch I made about a radio drama serial idea( no money in it, but I do love radio).

Now get thee behind me, I have to catch a train with a fecking 6 in it!

School catchment areas are important to MC families everywhere - I was reading about the Finnish school system in a US newspaper article the other day - lots of readers had commented at the bottom about the Finnish ideal and how everyone just sent their dc to the local school - then a Finnish reader dispelled the myth somewhat with something along the lines of, 'My wife and I made sure we moved into the catchment of a school we were happy with when she was pregnant with our first child - all our middle class friends did the same - there are schools in Helsinki we would definitely not want to send our children to.'

Thornden School in Chandler's Ford is often talked about on here - if you look at the houses for sale on RightMove one of the main selling points of many seems to be THORNDEN SCHOOL CATCHMENT - in capitals just so prospective buyers don't miss it.

My DD1 went to a selective state grammar (small, out of catchment, selects from 80+ schools, so the local comps. have plenty of high achievers). She went on to get a double First at Cambridge .
My DD2 went to our local comprehensive-admittedly the one with consistently the best results in the borough -with admission criteria rather than a selection process . It is our nearest secondary school . We bought a house in the catchment 3 years before she was born- friends would comment that we were lucky to live in the catchment area. Fortunate yes, lucky no. We did not have the expensive cars, foreign holidays etc they enjoyed (As in most towns , houses in the catchment of a good school do cost more to buy or rent here-it's a fact of life. And I realise we were fortunate to be able to buy one. We married and had our family late, so were both well established in a career ) She has recently graduated with a First from a Russell group Uni.
In my view it was 'horses for courses'. Each child flourished in the best environment for them . But I also feel that the support and encouragement they got at home was a contributory factor .
Neither of my DC was ever coached for anything (apart from DD2 having a little help from a friend with A level Maths, which we paid said child £5 an hour for, as I recall). I suspect many children who do get in to highly selective schools have to be coached for the rest of their school life-hideously expensive and I would think very stressful for a child . I wonder how they cope at Uni .....

Oh yes, even in our really quite inexpensive part of the country, the price difference between a 4 bed modern detached house in one village in catchment of Ofsted good but historically not popular secondary school and the exact same house in a village 9 miles away with Ofsted outstanding, highly sought after school is c £65k. Which, incidentally, is what we will have spent on private education for yrs 7-11 for one dc.

I talk to lots of people in social housing and some in lots of debt. Many of these do rent and move for particular schools. Very few parents that I know don't care which school the kids go to. They look at ofsted reports and either move or give a relatives address.

Fascinated by the idea of buying in the catchment of a good secondary school 13 years before your child would go to it! Surely that's taking a massive risk- how many schools don't change significantly in one way or another over 13 years?

Also interested in the idea that people in social housing move to get into a good school.......is there usually much social housing in the catchment of "good" schools?

Ooh, and once again, people shy away from talking about the inequity of the grammar school system to be righteously indignant about house prices.......Just like every dinner party I've been to since 1980!

If the argument were to be true, failing schools should be empty. I think many parents do not care which school their child go to, or even worse in my view, they don't want to be seen to be doing anything different in order not to be ostracised - e.g. all their friends and family send their children to the local failing school so they do not want to be seen as making a different choice and being accused to be snobs. I have seen this a lot.

Hak - people don't shy away from talking about 'the inequity' (did you mean that? Or did you mean iniquity? Either works from your viewpoint I suppose :) ) of the grammar system to talk about the issues of selection by wealth, or at least not all of them do. Some of us don't believe the grammar system is either inequitable or iniquitous, and do believe that the issue of selection by wealth is both(and the wider issue of the gap between the haves - the people with the capital to take advantage of house price increases over the last 40 years - and the rest is an even bigger problem which has been at least in some parts of the country - perhaps not in Kent - exacerbated by the catchment system for comprehensive schools which has resulted in the creation of self perpetuating desirable and sink areas completely disconnected from anything other than school catchment). Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they are shying away from the issue.

Sovery - many people have no choice. They have to send their kids to school, they are caught in a financial trap which means they can't move, they can't afford to go private. Some parents might not care, I believe most do - but they can't manipulate the physical world to make good schools bigger or closer to where they live.

"Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they are shying away from the issue."

Well, when they say "Nonsense- the state selective system is perfectly fair. Now let's talk about house prices" it certainly looks that way!

Is there any research into the "buying into catchment" issue? Do we know how widespread it is? There is a suggestion on here that most people do it- is that true?

"to talk about the issues of selection by wealth"

But people DO talk about it. Some schools are using 'fair banding' and lotteries to try and get intakes which are more representative of the general population in a borough, rather than in the very small area around the school. This is one way of getting round some of the problems associated with selection by postcode.

The problem is that when this happens, and schools get more representative intakes, and GCSE results which reflect the fact that the school has more representative intakes, m/c parents start to bitch about the school 'going downhill', by which they mean slipping down the league tables.

"If the argument were to be true, failing schools should be empty. I think many parents do not care which school their child go to"

Rubbish - many parents feel absolutely powerless to work the system. In my area the most popular schools are oversubscribed to the tune of 1 place for every 8 applicants. The MAJORITY of children who apply for places at these schools will face rejection - the numbers tell you this is so. 90% the m/c parents I know who have got a school they very happy with for their child have either:

• got the child in through partial selection (many schools are allowed to select up to 10% of their intake according to ability)
• paid to go private
• got a place at a church school on the basis of their own church attendance
• been lucky enough to live in the catchment area of a popular school.

What choice then for those people who aren't church goers, don't have a child who will win a selective place, don't live near a popular school, and don't have enough money for private. What do you suggest these people do? Move? Rob a bank?

The schools at the bottom of the league tables have ridiculously disproportionate numbers of children on FSM, children with EAL, children with special needs. Do you think that parents whose children fall into these categories wouldn't want them to go to a school which is considered thriving and successful and gets great results if they thought it was possible? Of course not. They end up with the schools nobody else wants because they are unable to work the system.

Want to add, when people talk about 'bad schools' what they often mean is 'unpopular schools with low rates of 5 A-C GCSE, which are full of disadvantaged and low achieving children'. This on mumsnet is a 'bad school'.

No matter that this type of school might have loads of committed and well qualified teachers, be well managed and a happy place for children to learn. No matter than the 'value added' might be very good. It'll be a bad school because it will have only a tiny number of high achieving children.

Another school might be near the top of the local league tables, have hugely disproportionate numbers of m/c kids, and be considered 'a good school' by local parents. But that opinion may have fuck all to do with the way the school is run, the quality of the staff or management. It'll be based on the schools place in the local league tables, and the knowledge that the school has lots of high achieving children.

minifingers

Well said. League tables and the assumption that a school might be "best" for all children are symptoms of very lazy thinking by parents. The question is not "what is the best school?" but "what is the best school for my child?".

Our local comp does not appear high in the league tables and has an intake typical of central London (weighted to low/mid attainers, male majority, high FSM) but it does an "excellent" job with that intake. It's taken a decade for it to start to be recognised for that job. The irony is that now it gets "listed" as a good school more high attainers will go and future generations of low/mid attainers will have to look elsewhere (nearest alternative does do nearly so well on value added).

Sometimes it might be better if such schools keep a low profile.

Absolutely.

People are always amazed to hear that there is a grammar school, with 5 A*-C in the high 90s currently in special measures because it just coasts along allowing its selective cohort to do their thing.......

It is though a "waste of time" and resources to put a grammar school in special measures. The reason is the grammar's pupils will still probably access A levels and Higher education despite perhaps getting below "average" results for its cohort.

Minifingers. Unfortunately they are bad schools, because if your DC don't get 5 GCSE Maths/English as all of us know their options are severely limited. It does not matter that a school might get a disadvantaged badly abused child who can't read or spell an E grade. This in isolation would be an outstanding achievement . However, in reality a total failure because the child is left unable to either access further education or find employment.

Does not get 5 GCSE Maths/English.

"Minifingers. Unfortunately they are bad schools, because if your DC don't get 5 GCSE Maths/English as all of us know their options are severely limited. It does not matter that a school might get a disadvantaged badly abused child who can't read or spell an E grade. This in isolation would be an outstanding achievement "

I don't understand. Are you saying that a school can be said to be 'failing' or 'successful' only on the basis of results, regardless of intake or the way the school functions?

What do you suggest these schools do? Brain transplants on the children?

"Unfortunately they are bad schools"

Would add, my own dd is likely to leave secondary without 5 GCSE's including maths and English. Do I blame her school? Or myself? Or dd? Who then? I have done all I can to get my dd to work, her school has been amazing and has pulled out all the stops, giving her small group tutoring after school, access to a mentor and to mentoring schemes, counselling, and have been endlessly helpful.

If she had been at her previous school (which is part of a highly rated academy chain) she would have been excluded several years ago and would possibly not be doing GCSE's at all. Her current school have been highly successful at stopping her from going completely off the rails and keeping her in the classroom. I can't praise them enough. But according to your measurement, her school has failed, as she is unlikely to gain the GCSE's she will need to give her a good chance of employment. :-( (incidentally, the school has done all this knowing that my dd's exam grades will drag their stats down - her target grades were all A's and A*'s on the basis of her KS2 results. Maybe a less principled head teacher would work harder on getting rid of children like my dd to keep their figures looking good).

but mini your DD is obviously an extreme example of a problematic child.

Most pupils are nothing like that!

They are pretty amenable and sit in the portion of the bell curve of ability where the majority sit.

These children are able to get 5 Cs. If most of this group aren't getting them, then the school is not doing its job.

many schools are allowed to select up to 10% of their intake according to ability

Please could somebody name a couple of these schools outside London as they sure as heck don't exist round here