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'm a bit with the statement "I want the best for my children"

fillyjonk - that's not what I said at all...

But what none of us can do is help other people's children by not doing the best for our own.

"But what none of us can do is help other people's children by not doing the best for our own."

no disagree

i am prepared to compromise on the best for my kids for the good of society and OTHER kids-their friends, my friends kids, their future spouses, work collegues etc => wider society

I just want good enough . I don't want to do something unethical to get my kids ahead.

We do have a situation locally where the comps for which we are technically in the catchment area have pretty much NO kids from this area, because parents are pulling every string going to keep them out-moving, going welsh medium/religious/ whatever.

I am not actually blaming anyone for this, btw. I would certainly think twice about moving here if I had kids of that age.

The local comp has nearly 50% kids excluded in any one year, and 29% gcse grades a-c. There are some excellent points about it-they seem pretty inclusive of SEN and have good anti racism etc policies. But really-thats NOT good enough IMO. So wtf IS the solution?

Do you want a list?

One of the main problems with education is that decisions are made on behalf of schools by people who have no experience of schools , other than having been a pupil.

Everyone thinks they know what teaching/running schools is like, because they were once in school. It tends to be a bit more complicated than they think

I certainly want the best education for other people's children - how could I not? You can't bring up your child in a bubble - sometime the effects of an under-educated population will impact on them....But then, Anna, since you already live in France, you will have noticed the boatloads of Brits coming over because they are wanting to escape into a bubble du pays away from rising crime in the UK.

like fillyjonk says.

And actually, a "good enough" school can sometimes be better because I think it is good for children to mix with other children from a wide variety of backgrounds and with a variety of ability levels.

I checked out the ofsted report for dd's new school. It was good in RE, satisfactory in everything else. I was relieved - the other school I looked at was excellent in everything.

I do think it is worse to buy a house in the "right" catchment, in that you could be excluding a child from a poorer home - something you aren't doing if you go private.

That's certainly the situation where I am - the highly sought after Comp has houses next to it that cost £100k to £140k more than houses a mile away. A developer came along and built tiny houses a stone's throw from the school - the result was that a council estate which had previously been in the catchment area was no longer in it. The school went to the adjudicator to be allowed to give preference to "historic" siblings to try to preserve some sort of social mix in the school but failed.

Fillyjonk, bless you but I'm assuming that you haven't yet encountered the parents who really do view school as an enemy. They do not want anyone else having any authority at all over their children, and certainly don't want that authority extending into their homes. I may just about believe that they want the best for their children, but they certainly don't want an education for their children. You need to have brilliant teachers who can overcome that - not just good enough ones.

And of course as you get further up the school you have the children who resent school even if the parents believe otherwise.

Sticking a handful of middleclass parents and kids in will not suddenly make these schools a better place I'm afraid. School isn't the only issue that these families are facing.

SenoraPostrophe - I'm not sure that I understand the point that you make regarding your dd's school OFSTED - why do you view a just satisfactory report to be better than an excellent one? One of our local schools which has a good reputation has a below average OFSTED. In fact the OFSTED report basically concludes that the teaching is at best average and generally below average, and the only reason that the school is seen to be successful is that the parents view it to be so and are all willing to coach their own children (and as a result the school does reasonably well ont he leagure tables). I would have thought that it would be better to have a school with excellent OFSTED reports in terms of its teaching but it didn't necessariliy score as highly on the league tables because it had a more mixed entrance/catchment. I just can't see on any basis that a "satisfactory" OFSTED is something to be pleased about?

Errrrrrrr, I'm in Hackney too, sorry Dino and Hoxtonchick but my local primaries are dreadful. I certainly would not be happy to send mine to school round here - and I don't.

From what I've seen the secondary schools in Hackney are far are worse than the primaries..........

"I just want good enough . I don't want to do something unethical to get my kids ahead."

I think everyone wants good enough. You seem to think that buying a house in a catchment area for a good school is something parents only do to get their kids 'ahead'. If you do think that, really you're wrong (if you don't, sorry I misunderstood). People buy houses in areas with reasonable schools because they too want to get 'good enough', not just because they want their kids to get 'ahead', and because that's a way they can get that. Like someone else said, often people are, in effect, fleeing schools that they think will be positively harmful for their kids - not fleeing a reasonable middle ground in favour of excellence. Of course a few must also do it for reasons of snobbery or pushy parentness just as some feepaying parents are driven by those motives (it would be odd if none were). But by and large people aren't that different from you or from each other - they breathe a sign of relief at good enough, because it means their kids will be OK, and only then go looking for extras. Buying a house in an good catchment area is for most people who do it part of the first stage, not the second. People aren't specially keen to move house if they are otherwise happy with where they live, IME! And if they're not otherwise happy with where they live, then they're not moving house just for schools, which blurs the ethical issue slightly more.

If moving house and paying fees with education in mind are both equal, and equally unethical, I wonder, is it equally unethical to move near a park, bus stop, railways station or shops? All of those make places more attractive and must have a knock-on effect on prices, and price some people out. Schools are only one of many things like that.

I sort of see what franca means below about being a bit regarding "getting the best". There is the myth put about that everyone can have "the best" - compare the way the word "exellence" is bandied about, when in truth if excellence is what it says it is, then it's surely only available for a small percentage.

Saying all schools can be "excellent" is like saying all kids should leave with grade As - it makes the designation itself meaningless. In truth, the plan behind the comprehensive system is to make everyone either rise or fall to the same level of mediocrity.

There is a supply-demand problem in state schools, which comes about from treating schools like cereal. If the top brand is Kellogg's, which nearly everyone (say 97%) wants, then that should be the brand available on 97% of the shelves - but it's not. If schools were, indeed, a shelf of cereals, there would be a small shelf of Kellogg's, a larger section of other brands and vast swathes of Shop's Own Brand. And for those who arrived after midday, there would be nothing.

The long-term answer, of course, is to make all schools equally good so that nobody need ever move to a "better" catchment or buy their way out of the system. Unfortunately, this is laughably utopian. Given that, people will try to deal with the system that exists as best they can - which involves getting the best for their children, and not worrying about anyone else's. It's where Marxist ideals fall down - who will EVER give up a decent school place or a hospital bed for another person?

Another Hackney schools veteran here (a different one from dino or hc) and agree it's been fine. Better than fine for ds, actually -- it's suited him really well and he has a lovely bunch of friends. It didn't suit dd, but she's an odd little bunny anyway, and had a major personality clash with half the staff in the school.

And for secondaries -- Mossbourne is looking fantastic (but we're not in catchment by any calculation, even before our house move); haven't heard any actual reports on the new Petchey academy, but see the new Y7 intake coming out after school, and I'd be perfectly happy for my children to be sharing classrooms with them.

We've just moved to a house across the borough boundary which is actually in the catchment for a desirable primary and a desirable secondary, though that's not why we chose the house. And ironically, my children are unlikely to be going to either in any case, because we're catholics.

i am so pinning my hopes on the bridge academy frogs .

I read an article recently that said, at the end of the day, people's opinion on private/state school only reflects their financial standing and nothing else. Hmm...

greenday - yes, it may not be quite so clear-cut, but broadly there is a large element of that. It irks me when people talk of private education as a "choice", as if all there was to it was "choosing" a school and nothing about the process was out of your hands.

What I do notice is that the most vocal supporters of state education happen to be, in the main, people who have jostled themselves into a "reputable" state school catchment. I'd love to see how their "principles" hold up if faced with a sink-estate comp.

How about buying a house near a good state school but going private anyway?

Is that bad too?

Maybe the Hackney primaries have improved because of the influx of the middle classes into the area?

My daughter's school has just been given a Notice to Improve. I'm staying faithful.

What an inspiring headteacher and wonderful school. That is what I want from a school for my 3yo DTS.

I personally think most private schools would not have the inclination to turnaround troublesome children in the way that this headteacher has done - that to me is the main difference between state and private. Many private schools weed out the undesirables to create their desirable learning environment. Most state schools are obliged to give children a chance before considering extreme measures such as exclusion.

absolutely none, unless it's my childless pc sister speaking!

In answer to the OP no, not really. I wish I could afford to do one or the other but am hoping I won't need to.