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.

I think the reason superselective grammars were brought up in the first place is because the top ones either have no catchment (score alone) or quite a wide catchment (county wide type stuff). So they are in theory open to all to apply to. And then move there, although that is not an option for the very poor.

In DS’s grammar there are, without a doubt, a high concentration of highly gifted boys. They are pushed at school beyond the curriculum and also into extracurricular academic type stuff as well as pushing each other and being happy with each other. Why anyone would want to prevent those boys having a good and fulfilling time at secondary school is beyond me. When you speak to the parents, many realise early on, often by preschool age, that their child is quite different and usually by Reception, a teacher will tell you if the child is really quite beyond their years academically speaking. There are a lot of people on these threads going on about Oxbridge later down the line - I went to Oxbridge and I am perfectly average upper intelligence. Probably top 2-5%. That is not what I am talking about.
Some of the boys at DS superselective are way way beyond Oxbridge entry standard (1 in 1000 1 in 10000 type thing). They do have an educational need so why would parents not send their kids somewhere with similar kids and be allowed to do so? These schools do not have an impact on local comprehensives. You can’t tutor an average child into a superselective. Maybe a top 5%-10% child can be tutored in but definitely not an average one.

The VAT policy on indy schools will increasingly throw up these conversations. After all there are many forms of privilege:

www.schoolmanagementplus.com/bursars-finance/fee-paying-families-arent-the-only-ones-shelling-out-for-good-schools/?swcfpc=1&fbclid=IwY2xjawE7oaNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHfF4zvOQf1gvr15oK8Zm14IBowB8h_IPWfQy0unfaRRTelY321l1KQJRQA_aem_iF1PinG4Lnn3AKk6gUVhIg

Some of the boys at DS superselective are way way beyond Oxbridge entry standard (1 in 1000 1 in 10000 type thing).

"This is definitely a small minority, and one could argue that many more 1 in 10000 type students attend normal comprehensive schools (a lot of parents don’t push their kids for grammar schools ajd believe grammar school not the right place , or many places don’t have grammar schools).

In terms of Oxbridge, the majority of students come from comprehensive schools. Even the most competitive grammar schools have only 20-30% of their students getting in.

The notion that superselective grammar schools are filled with students who have special academic needs is largely a self-fulfilling belief driven by parents with high expectations.

If one tries to measure where the most intelligent and able kids come from (1 in 10000), look at the international STEM subjects Olympiad competitions. Grammar schools do NOT have an overrepresentation in the GB teams; most students are from comprehensive and private schools.

My DD went to a superselctive grammar. There were some very bright children, but most were just top 10% type intelligence level, not unusually intelligent. Most were tutored to pass the 11 plus, most got good exam results- 6/7/8/9s at GCSE and mostly As and Bs at A levels with the odd child getting 3 or 4 A*s- not all of them by a long way.

The advantage of a grammar school is that academic expectations are higher, behaviour is generally better because all of the children have parents that are supportive of the school and their child's education and the children are on the whole all academically motivated. Parents too have high expection and ambitions for their children.

That’s the nub of it. You want your child in a school with majority like minded / supporting education / decent upbringing type families. Their class and race is irrelevant - it’s those qualities we seek.

The issue is the large tranche of the population who are none of those things. Problems in schools are general societal issues playing out. Hence the grammar school.

No, a large proportion of them attend these schools because they have no catchment and their parents literally move across the country to accommodate their educational needs. Obviously, it’s not practical for many people to do that. My point was in response to the poster who tried to claim that the kids at superselectives aren’t there because of intellectual merit but solely because they have pushy parents. At the bottom end of the intake that can be true but at the top end it is categorically not. Some people just don’t want to hear that some kids are naturally brighter than others and that sometimes nurture AND nature can work in their favour.

Do pushy parents seeking like-minded peers become part of the special education needs in the education system? Why would people support state-funded education that leads to an utterly unfair distribution of students? Isn’t teaching by sets in comprehensive schools sufficient? Why should one support a system that divides groups and promotes social segregation.

Do you have any evidence showing that top end students in grammar school are naturally brighter than those top end in comprehensive school? I doubt you can find any. I think it is more like some people whose kid attended grammar willing to believe their kids are supposed to be brighter.

There is a difference in different areas of the UK. Exam results are clearly showing areas in the midlands and north are less academic. So it’s doubtful comps in these areas would be as good as grammars. In full grammar areas, eg Bucks, there are no comps. The pass rate to the grammars varies between 40.% in the southern part of Bucks to 20% in the northern part. So it’s not an even spread.

We are in the NE. No grammars. Latest GCSE results show we are one of the poorest performing areas in the country. Fewer than 20% achieve top grades in GCSEs, many leave comps with only 1 or 2 GCSEs.

Well I’ve taught in both for years. You’d have to be blind, deaf and dim not to realise it after spending substantial time with these kids. They exist, whether you like it or not. They absolutely do not make up the whole intake of super selective grammar schools but they also absolutely are there. In exactly the same way that lots of children can be good at swimming but only a handful have the ability to become Olympic swimmers, lots of children can be bright but only a handful are naturally exceptionally bright. I’m really baffled as to why it should be so confronting that some people have outstanding academic ability when it isn’t confronting that other people have outstanding sports or musical ability. It’s exactly the same thing. Different people have different strengths. They lie on a spectrum. Some are at the top end of the spectrum. Whether that gets nurtured or not depends on many factors but it doesn’t change the fact that you still have people at the top of the spectrum 🤷‍♀️

No thanks. We walk to school.

There are naturally academically gifted children in any school.

Maybe on the areas with no super selectives, the genius children would be pushed to Private schools instead if the Comprehensive was genuinely unsuitable?

They exist, whether you like it or not. They absolutely do not make up the whole intake of super selective grammar schools but they also absolutely are there.

No one denies high ability kid exist.

The point is: in superselective grammar these are minority, and they exist in comprehensive school too, also in minority. And there is no evidence that these kids in absolute number sense are present more in superselective grammar school. There are also no evidence grammar school are the right place for these kids.

Except Labour are trying to make private schools even more unreachable for many. So in counties where there are no grammar schools or selective state and outcomes are low at GCSE there are no options.

As I posted previously on this thread, there are young people with extreme outlier ability. They are, by definition, rare - certainly not a ‘school’s worth’ of them, probably not even a class’s worth of them in each area, and their extreme ability is usually only in a narrow range of subjects compared with the full curriculum.

It would be more efficient and effective, rather than having the full 11+ apparatus with the coaching industry, private primary grammar crammers etc etc to have a very small number of ‘special schools’ (co-located and sharing facilities with a comprehensive, but probably in practice located in a regional university city to access appropriate academics) to meet the needs of these outliers once diagnosed through the EHCP process. Children thought to be in need of this diagnosis should be recommended through their schools, with the usual rounds of ‘normal’ SEN provision and review to meet their extreme needs.

I would also say that the extreme ability children I have taught (3-4 in a long teaching career) have all gone to a good comprehensive, despite both private and superselective schools being ‘practically accessible’ options in terms of distance and economic profile. All have gone on to achieve as would have been predicted - top grades and internationally-renowned universities.

What utter bollocks.

My children and their friends obviously didn't get your memo. Grades 8 and 9 across the board at GCSE (grade 9 in every GCSE for one of DD's friends). 33% of A level grades at A* or A (across the year group, more like 95% among DD's friends - edited).

None of them ever been "targeted" for being bright. You've watched too many episodes of Grange Hill or read too much Daily Mail.

@cantkeepawayforever you would need to amend the system for your proposals to be possible because exceptional ability is not, on its own, considered a SEN. Although obviously some children and young people have SEN and exceptional ability. Therefore, a pupil with exceptional ability (who doesn’t also have SEN) would not be eligible for an EHCP.

Yes, I am proposing a new system, in which all grammar schools are abolished, and replaced by a very small number of regional special schools for those genuinely so able that they cannot efficiently be educated in a mainstream comprehensive.

It may, in fact, only need to be a ‘special class’ for one or two subjects (Maths is the most often quoted) which would obviously be even cheaper.

But you would have to pay for the transport to those schools for DC across each county.

Perhaps like the ‘units’ within mainstream schools - or even embedded special schools - that exist in some areas already.

So each school would have a unit? If not then again you've still got a transport problem.