Scrap school catchments now

[Momentumummy]

If Labour wants to eventually end parents buying privilege through private schools, it needs to go after school catchments. How can it be fair to decide schools by distance to gates when it often depends on ability to pay rent or mortgage which will usually be higher in catchment for good schools?

The only fair system is a lottery one by borough (at least for secondary when kids are old enough to travel alone). You should be allocated a place within your borough but it should be randomized and not based on distance to gates.

But one catchment area can have multiple areas of differing property values and different social standing.
Ds school was in the middle of a council estate but drive even a half mile out and property prices drastically change so one school, lots of children from families with different economical standing.
Might not be like this everywhere but we have one really long rd in Bolton, the lower end house prices are a third of those at the upper end, school maybe somewhere in the middle.
There must be lots of schools like this.

Lefty thinking hopes for a cheap way of osmosis by learning alongside.

This seems to be the wishful thinking from grammar school parents for a long time already

Surely, there is no need to ‘segregate’ able and well-supported children from a school which creates structure and respect, even if the perceived ‘need’ for this culture comes from children with less privileged backgrounds?

Part of the issue is that really good schools that succeed despite the socio-economics of their intake can then become a magnet for those whose money and background mean that they can seek out and take steps to meet the entrance criteria for the now ‘good’ school. This squeezes out the most marginalised (often aided by the permanent exclusion policies of the schools who demand ‘structure and respect’) who then congregate in increasing numbers in specific schools which become harder and harder to turn round.

This is why I would require all schools to take and maintain equal proportions of PP and SEN children.

“Surely, there is no need to ‘segregate’ able and well-supported children from a school which creates structure and respect, even if the perceived ‘need’ for this culture comes from children with less privileged backgrounds?”

@cantkeepawayforever - I have said this on other threads. Amongst my wide group of educationally motivated middle class friends from school, uni and work and locally, schools with too much structure and discipline are not popular. The grammars my kids attend are far less strict/harsh than many of our local comp academies. They don’t need to be. The kids are self motivated anyway and work hard anyway.

“Lefty thinking hopes for a cheap way of osmosis by learning alongside.

This seems to be the wishful thinking from grammar school parents for a long time already”

@Overturnedmum - not really. These are plodder families, read the study I linked to. Parents willing to make their kids do the work to get in and the discipline required probably goes a long way in the long run.

I don't think that is anything to do with grammar schools tbh. Why did you only do combined science and not triple science? At my children's comprehensive school (no grammars in this part of the country), combined science was for students who were a bit less able because less content meant they were more likely to be able to achieve better grades. Able children were entered for triple science (individual GCSEs) because they were deemed to be able to cope with the increased content/workload. The grammar school kids knew more than you because they learned more, not because they went to grammar school.

But that is a ‘preference’, not a ‘need’.

There is no need for more able students to be segregated into schools who are privileged enough to not require a strict discipline code. It is simply a preference, because ‘don’t need to have a strict discipline code’ is a marker of ‘has a privileged intake’ and thus such schools will be preferred by parents who want a school that is full of ‘people like us’.

So there is no reason to have grammar schools, can just abolish all of them.

I would not put it past this current government to abolish selective 11 plus state intake when they realise private school VAT won’t make money, it’s exactly the kind of thing they would do to cover up. But we are in a demographic race with other countries for educated high earing tax payers so it won’t benefit the country nor the vulnerable.

If you apply to the school you as a parent expected to follow its rules around uniform, to attendance & homework etc.

Parents knew if their children attended they had to be in school and they need to support that.

What happens to DC whose parents do not actively support the school's rules? Not that they're opposed, just that they can't or won't bother.

Given that young people in matched areas of the country with grammars / secondary moderns and with true comprehensives achieve pretty much identical outcomes, should we reverse that - why should sone areas of the country retain selection at 11+, since it does not achieve better educational results?

(Yes, an individual grammar will achieve better results than an individual comprehensive. That’s an obvious result if a selective intake. But why should someone considering the country as a whole retain grammar schools if, at a cohort level, they achieve no net benefit?)

we are in a demographic race with other countries for educated high earing tax payers

How would abolish grammar school related to this? Grammar schools do not help in attracting more high earnings tax payers anyway.

Of course they do - private schools, high performing comps and grammars are populated with successful higher earners who are educationally ambitious for their DCs. Education is one of the main areas successful people look into when moving house.

I do not think, though, that the current government will choose to dismantle the 11+ system as a priority - far too many other priorities. Grammar / secondary modern systems are not, at a cohort level, actively harmful compared with comprehensive systems, whereas eg. lack of funding; shortage of SEN school places; teacher recruitment and retention are all far greater immediate needs and are actively causing harm.

I can appreciate this as an ‘internal migration’ point - when families are selecting where in the country to settle. Whether it is true in attracting high tax paying families from other countries, who would otherwise pay their taxes to other governments, is perhaps less clear?

3 comments you have made in this thread, all self contradict to itself.

"These are plodder families, read the study I linked to. Parents willing to make their kids do the work to get in and the discipline required probably goes a long way in the long run."

"private schools, high performing comps and grammars are populated with successful higher earners who are educationally ambitious for their DCs."

So these are all to do with successful higher earner and their families and nothing to do with the state funded schools, why there is a need to a state funded grammar school?

Lefty thinking hopes for a cheap way of osmosis by learning alongside.

But it seems that "higher earner" only wants a cheap way to learn alongside with other similar type of families?

I'm in Ireland and we don't have school catchment areas like England and I'd love them. Yes some schools absolutely do set catchments as part of the enrollement policy. A very newly established secondary school close to me has a very fair (in my opinion) strict catchment policy which also includes living in the catchment and attending one of the local primary schools. Another long established highly sought after school in the area has a policy of priority to the children of people who have attended the school themselves so children are driven from miles away leading to massive traffic jams while children living next to the school need to be driven or get a bus to another school. It's ridiculous.

All this means is that the undersubscribed school you're offered if you happen to live in one of these black holes is even further away.

“But it seems that "higher earner" only wants a cheap way to learn alongside with other similar type of families?”

@Overturnedmum - I think it is more about the DCs happiness than just grades. Grades for high achieving DC from supportive families will be good from any school (as parents will plug gaps at home themselves or with tutors or buy books etc to supplement), but people who already pay through their nose via taxes so others can make bad choices don’t necessarily want to make things harder for their own DC when they are young, on top of that. We pay the Government vast amounts in taxes already, they just need to organise the systems better and invest far more early on. Instead they are constantly investing at the age level where people can already vote, it’s a false economy. I am happy to pay for poor kids to get enough attention via my taxes which I already do in spades by the way, but I am not happy for my DC to suffer on top of that. There is a difference. And yes pretty much all of my kids were bullied at some point in mid to late primary for being super high strivers. None of that ever happened at grammar school.

I am not happy for my DC to suffer on top of that. There is a difference. And yes pretty much all of my kids were bullied at some point in mid to late primary for being super high strivers. None of that ever happened at grammar school.

Super high strivers as the parents who tutor their kids for 11 plus that makes late primary school years much harder to manage the study progress.

A lot of high earners family children didn't attend to grammar school and thriving at comprehensive school, most probably contributed the same tax. Why one would have a state funded education system that cause much social division?

“Super high strivers as the parents who tutor their kids for 11 plus that makes late primary school years much harder to manage the study progress.“

@Overturnedmum - I never externally tutored my DC. They could read between 3-4 fluently too and are bilingual and play 3 instruments or sing to a very high level. Just like most people in my wider family. Had we lived in Cambridge or Winchester like others in my family they would have just gone to the high performing comps and then colleges their cousins go to. There isn’t much difference. All these kids were greater depth in every single school reports across primary too. Not sure what your reference is to “‘manage study progress”? Mine love maths and classic literature and that was from year 2/3 for all of them. Locally, grammars are the best fit for them. So what? They are superselective grammars and don’t cause division, plenty of people choose not to take the tests. Up to them.
Some of the London grammars also have gifted & talented programmes now. Wilson’s has 9 music scholars and football scholars too, highest results in the country and they keep most their boys from 11. Some kids are just very talented, from an early age.

There was zero choice at my comprehensive school. I was in the top set and we did combined science.

The joys of a bog standard comprehensive.

Locally, grammars are the best fit for them. So what? They are superselective grammars and don’t cause division, plenty of people choose not to take the tests. Up to them.

So I guess it is ok to convert these grammar school to conprehsive school too because plenty of people does think it is a good idea to have that teat anyway.

Some of the London grammars also have gifted & talented programmes now. Wilson’s has 9 music scholars and football scholars too.

That is less than 5% of the total intake? And they still need tutor and 11 plus exam by the way.

Apart from envy, why are people so against children going to a school that suits them?

As I said further up thread, if you consider being academically gifted to be a form of SEN (Special Educational Needs) then it's clear that specific SEN schools (grammars) are needed.

Why is one form of SEN any more valid than another in terms of state provision?

academically gifted to be a form of SEN (Special Educational Needs) as certified by how much money and time the parents push their kid , tutoring to pass the 11 plus exam?