Ethically, is there any difference between buying a house in a good catchment area and just PAYING fees?

[Fillyjonk]

Seems pretty much the same to me

Both ways you are paying for an edcuation

Both ways the intake of the school is limited, one by catchment (local, expensive) one by just upfront paying fees.

Thoughts? Justifications ?

(this got posted in SEN for some reason. Not sure how. Apologies)

I do have a slight issue with this "buying houses near a good school prices poorer children out". In any area near a school, there will be a mix of types of property, some larger, some tiddly. I'm not sure that a pushy middle-class parent is going to buy a grotty one bed flat near a good school (ignoring those who buy solely to get an address as opposed to those who will actually live there), so obviously there will be a mix of backgrounds/income. It's really only the better properties which are affected this way.

I know that local admissions changes caught a number of parents on the hop this year. Three local primaries were feeders for a good high school. So parents from further out of town moved their children to the feeder schools in order to be guaranteed a place at the high school. The admissions criteria changed this year and the primaries are no longer feeder schools, but admissions are decided on distance from home to school. As the school is heavily over-subscribed, those parents who bussed their children to the primaries are excluded from the high school. I presume now it will push up house prices locally.

The inflation of proces is still going to hit the poor though, isn't it. They will be unable to sell and move up the property level withinthe area.

You could try the same argument in nice holiday areas. Second home owners don't want the grotty and bedsites. Does make it OK though, does it?

And bt pricing them out of homes in the are, you knacker their housing choices any the educational choices for their children

I agree, but being unable to buy a better property in your area doesn't necesssarily affect the child's educational opportunities. I think that's getting into a whole other area.

When we bought this house, all 3 boys were at primary school and we hadn't even started thinking about secondary. It turns out that we are ideally placed for both a good local grammar and the best high school in town. House prices in this street have shot up and I doubt we could afford to buy a house here now. Some of that may be to do with the high school's admissions critiera changing.

Ironically I live in the catchment area for the best comp in town. However the school really wouldn't suit either of my kids. It would tip my oh so bright, but highly neurotic dd over the edge (it is a real hot house). Ds would only get in because of his sister because he has SEN. And the school is horrible for kids with SEN. They treat them abhominally. So we will continue to pay

Interesting question. Ethically, not really different as you are doing the same thing - fleeing. When people move for a catchment it's usually a negative decision (got to get away from Bash Street Comp, no way is DD going there) rather than a positive one (she simply MUST go to St Ethelberta's as it's so wonderful).

On the other hand, when you move to a decent area you get a lot more than the school - and eventually, when you've paid off the mortgage, you have a nice house in a nice area to own and wnjoy, even if your children have turned out to be ill-educated horrors. Imagine if you'd paid for their education!

Do I get a get-out-of-jail-free card (ethically) because we just bought this house without giving a second thought to catchment areas? Well, I did a bit for primary but then it turned out I had the wrong school. Secondary school boundaries changed after we moved, too.

It's an interesting question though. I am inclined to think the pushing up of house prices is worse.

We live in a brilliant catchment area at the moment - but they keep talking about changing it, so it's likely it will over the next 6 years. Without a doubt I'd move - and in fact we're trying to move anyway because we haven't got a garden. The direction we'll hopefully move in will be nearer to the secondary school we want ds's to go to - partly so that there's no worries about the catchment area changing and partly because it's a lovely area with houses with gardens!

But I have no principles and hypothetically would move and/or pay privately anyway - once I'd won the lottery, of course...

I think both are dodgy ethically-speaking. Luckily it's just not an issue where I live.

Well we moved to a lovely area about two years ago - an added bonus is that we have great schools (4-11) within walking distance. I love it here, have no intention of moving ever . Comprehensive is slightly more challenging, though neither is exactly a sink school and I intend to send my kids to local comp where they can walk to school. I intend to be involved in the school, just as I am at primary school, to help support financial and learning issues. That is what I call being involved in the community.

Ok, Guildford isn't exactly the inner cities and no doubt I would have more challenging decisons if we lived in Hackney or Brixton.

But what amazes me is the amount of parents who are already starting to jump off /talk about jumping off the state bandwagon at 3,7 and 11. Do these parents not feel that the education of ALL children is not as important as their own ?? After all these kids will grow up to the adults of the future and their lost educational opportunities directly affect the environment you live in, unless of course they never get to meet them

People with money will always be able to afford things that people with less money can't. What is unethical is the number of schools that aren't and can't deliver a decent education to the children who attend them.

Basically capitalism works by rewarding self-interested decisions. I can't see how blaming individuals for doing what a capitalist system demands is helpful. The only way forward is to build some protection into capitalism by providing fantastic universal services so people without power in the system have life opportunities and it's in everyone's best interests to use their local facilities. imo.

Great post scummy.

Great post scummy.

If you live in catchment you more likely can walk to school, has positive environmental impacts. Less chaufeuring in car of offspring.

There is a strong argument that "good" schools are only so "good" because of the people who can afford to live there. It's the socio-economic character of the intake that determines the achievement, overwhelmingly, not the teachers or admin. If people of all social groups went to every school, there would be very little difference between them. So driving up house prices is not a true disadvantage to the poor; their local school (argument goes!) is inherently just as good, but has the trait (both goods and bads flow from this) of concentrating children from poor backgrounds.

Alternatively, there is the argument that private eduation is more virtuous: you pay fees but you still pay taxes; so you give more to the state system than you get back.

y'know, we live in hackney (already mentioned twice on this thread ), and are jolly pleased with our local primary school. ds is in reception, making great progress with a fabulous group of friends. we are 2 minutes walk from school. we moved here 5.5 years ago when i was pregnant with him & schools didn't even cross our radar (maybe they should have....). and yes, we are in a position to be able to pay if necessary (both dp & i were privately educated) but i'm so pleased things are working out. ok, we may have to think more carefully at secondary level, but then again, there's a brand new secondary school opening literally around the corner so it might all be fine.

phew, not meaning to rant, but really, hackney isn't some inner circle of hell!

lljkk, I don't think your argument is universally true.

Where I live, the secondary schools are excellent - all take from a truly inclusive catchment area, no house price catchment areas etc. Totally mixed intake - for 2 of the schools, the catchment area is the whole town, thus ensuring the poorest and most disadvantaged children have the same chance of getting in as the richest and most advantaged children.

One of these schools is, according to various government measures if that's what you focus on, the best comprehensive in the county, with a truly mixed intake. So it must be due to the teaching, or the leadership of the school or something else surely, not the intake.

Hoxtenchick, the hackney thing came up, becayse of a new secondary school which is sponsored bt the school where mine go (if that makes sense). Wheras Primaries in Hackney can be good, historically there has always been an issue over secondary schools

just don't want you to think that we are dreadful parents for sending our children to local hackney secondary schools mb (which secondary school is it btw?)

should have explained, this isn't really a personal ethical decision. tbh for MY family, i am inclined towards either steiner (private, and fair enough-its not for most people and why should the taxplayer pay? not like most privates where you are just getting "better" not different) or home education (which i also consider to be essentially private education, tbh)

but if I DID send my kids to school-it'd probably just be my local. I do think its what parents put in, much more than the school, 90% of the time, tbh (and yes some kids have problems, but this is true in any school). Its a lottery and to assume that because the kids they are mixing with are called things like Oliver and Felix, the school is somehow better-no, thats a real oversimplification.

I also think that a lot of so called "sink" schools ARE doing better than a lot of eg grammars, where teachers IME sometimes coast a bit.

But am interested in debate.

IMO there is absolutely nothing ethically wrong about either decision. It is every decent parent's natural instinct to want to give their children the best possible education.

Stop worrying about everyone else and look after your own children's future. If all parents did this we'd have far fewer issues about sink schools.

it is not unethical to do either

eh?

"Stop worrying about everyone else and look after your own children's future. If all parents did this we'd have far fewer issues about sink schools."

how on EARTH does that work then? I mean, HOW?

I think ALL parents worry about their kids futures and yet, bizarely, we have sink schools

believe it or not i give a feck about kids i am utterly unrelated to.

Fillyjonk - none of us can solve other people's problems... The state and proper organisations can help sort social problems but as individual parents our responsibility is to bring up our own children.

this might be a political divide we have here

i do not agree with the "there is no such thing as society, just individuals and their families" pov