confused - is May effectively suggesting an end to catchment areas?

[BoyMeetsWorld]

The latest news article on BBC suggests that May is now proposing not just more grammars and faith schools but that ALL schools should become academically selective to overcome the postcode lottery.

Aside from the obvious issue of which schools will 'select' the less able and how can those children possibly not feel like failures...

Am I right in my interpretation that this would abolish catchment areas completely?

Bit confused what's going on. And need to know on a selfish level, as just about to buy a house we don't really want and can't really afford purely to get into good catchment...

TM said any school can apply to become a grammar, not automatically turn into a grammar overnight.

In case of single school in a certain area maybe they just won't be allowed to convert without pairing up with a non selective local school to form a working consortium? Maybe the school will have to sponser the opening of a non selective sister school?

I cannot wait for my local Academy Chain new build to apply for selective status
snigger
snigger

I think that part of the problem is that Theresa May was Shadow Education Secretary for a short period of time. That was just after Labour put in the law about no new grammar schools. So she has a bit of experience and she probably opposed the Labour law, partly because that's what the opposition does.

Having been through the grammar school system (or at least partly for Theresa May) seems to leave a massive impression. The people I know who did (generally the generation ahead of me) loved it and wish their grandchildren could go to grammar school. But that personal experience really embodies 'the plural of anecdote isn't data'. And they don't have a fully formed idea of what the alternative would have been if they had been through a comprehensive system or hadn't passed the 11 plus. They also don't consider the possibility that their grandchildren wouldn't get into a grammar school.

There is probably also support for grammar schools from many privately educated parents who can't afford to privately educate their children. I'm teetering on the brink of this because I loved my selective independent school, I loved the very academic environment. If I was in a grammar school area I would accept the status quo and jump through hoops to get my DDs into grammar school. But I really can't see that putting grammar schools into the mix in the area I live in as being a good idea at all. I accept that I might occasionally need to top-up my DDs comprehensive education with tutoring if any gaps in provision become obvious, but I am relieved that I won't have to get them through the pressure of the 11 plus - as if SATS aren't enough pressure.

You could theoretically have all schools being selective if, over any given area covering approximately feasible travel distances you have:

1 school that selects solely on mathematical ability (no tests for english/literacy allowed)

1 school that selects solely on writing and literacy ability (no tests for maths allowed)

1 school selecting on musical aptitude

1 school selecting on creative skills in art or design

1 school selecting on aptitude for languages

Etc etc

There are already some schools that select on specific subjects like this but only 15% of their intake. You could instead have them able to take 85% selectively like this (with some places flexible because there will always be someone who doesn't fit in a neat box).

It could work, paired with a general philosophy that everyone is talented at something and schooling can help you find where your talents lie. By not allowing any school to test on more than one subject, you spread out the talents and the challenges whilst hopefully giving every child the chance to shine.

Where it would all fall down would be in the areas where there's only one or two schools in reasonable travel distance - and if that happens to be selective on something that you aren't that good at it could be miserable.

I am probably of the generation ahead of you QuackDuck and was the product of a girls grammar school. The best which could be said of it was that it was good in parts, but on balance it could best be described as mediocre, having an extremely weak headmistress during the time I was there. I don't think anyone mourned its passing, and I don't recall anyone much loving their time there. I shudder to think that a school like that might return.

Peregrina - I don't know a lot about 1960s grammar schools, but I get the impression that my inlaws/father went to super-selectively grammar schools in areas that then had a second tier of less selective grammar schools. And they were in the higher sets within those grammar schools. So their experiences might well not be representative of the general grammar school experience.

Where we live certainly doesn't have the population density to support that sort of grammar school system, even if we wanted it.

cexuwaleozbu Fri 09-Sep-16 22:24:14 It could work, paired with a general philosophy that everyone is talented at something and schooling can help you find where your talents lie. By not allowing any school to test on more than one subject, you spread out the talents and the challenges whilst hopefully giving every child the chance to shine.

So what happens if you DC is talented at art but your local selective schools specialises in those most tallented in Maths, MFL, Science, Sport, Music or literacy? Seriously there would have to be a huge number of schools opening all over the Country to make this work. Where on earth will the money come from for this?

cexuwaleozbu Fri 09-Sep-16 22:24:14 It could work, paired with a general philosophy that everyone is talented at something and schooling can help you find where your talents lie.

So do you think that all children will know their talents by the age of 11 or would selection come at a later stage?

The specialism thing did happen in a non-selective manner when schools started to become 'a specialist technology college'. How it seemed to work near us was that the first schools to get a designated specialism took technology and other 'local' schools couldn't take that specialism. That meant that the next wave were languages or similar and eventually the last schools took the specialisms that were left over.

In our fairly rural area secondary choice only exists really for those on the cusp of catchments, in terms of getting a place and being able to get transport to the school. So most people have to use their designated catchment school. Our local school had a specialism of performing arts (I think it arrived late at the party). That wasn't actually appealing to local parents and probably pushed the edge of catchment pupils towards other schools which therefore hadn't done the school any favours.

I'd therefore really be against specialisms and selection for those specialisms. A good, local comprehensive school that covers all bases to allow pupils to explore their interests and discover their talents seems much more useful here. Whether there is any merit in a different system for urban areas, I remain unconvinced.

The huge factor still remains reasonable distance.

Or what's going to happen is tons of working parents will no longer be able to as entire days are spent managing the school runs and moving to areas will no longer secure school places. If you have multiple children, or don't drive, it could become a complete logistical nightmare.

What will actually happen is that MC parents will have choice as they can make the economic decision.

Anybody below group B2 will settle for the nearest school as they always have done.