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.

@Emmanuelll

A teacher should be able to see all of the children you teach as individuals.

Yes each student would be treated as an individual! We usually get info on any SEN & notified of any things we might be able to do to help. So we then aim to make sure they feel happy & confident. I'm unsure where I have said anything negative about students with SEN?

they are only usually in sets for core subjects & so top set students will have to go slower in some classes where they are not in sets

Foe non-core subjects, the abilities are more mixed and due to most non-core subjects were not assessed via 11.plus exam (less tutoring) teacher would see in comprehensive schools a real good mixed of abilities in these subjects. The comprehensive cohort are actually contributing more positively to the class on these subjects.

Reform catchment intake to make sure social mixed intake so parents focus less on the implicit selection but more on the actual education.

I think disadvantaged parents would actually find this more of a challenge. They might have no car or less money to pay bus fares if they get allocated a school further away.

I think other European countries seem to manage this better & they don't in general have grammar schools. In Germany they do have Gymnasium but the class teacher recommends whether a student goes to the Gymnasium or not. So I don't suppose there is pressure to pass an exam.

The way comprehensive schools set is far from consistent from school to school. Some full on stream, others only set in Maths in year 7&8, some don’t set at all until year 9 onwards. It really depends. It is another thing parents try and enquire about before choosing a school. So some comps that are large can actually choose to operate more like grammars anyway.

@Araminta1003

In my school they changed from top sets to a broad higher set which was more mixed ability. This was to enable students of different backgrounds to access higher sets. It's meant that the top set maths no longer do some sort of additional maths in Year 11 as they can't do GCSE in Year 10. It has been beneficial for middle/lower sets but probably less beneficial for the high prior attainers.

My subject has always been mixed ability so it's not really affected me.

I don't think parents of high prior attainers have liked the change. It's hard to keep everyone happy. We have less middle class parents applying for places. I don't know what the answer is.

I think disadvantaged parents would actually find this more of a challenge. They might have no car or less money to pay bus fares if they get allocated a school further away.

See up thread there is suggestions on maximum distance and time by cutrent bus route, school bus subsidiaries, rural area exception etc. To make sure all these are covered.

Any analysis show that current kids of disadvantage family attend school closer to home than other family? I doubt this.

some comps that are large can actually choose to operate more like grammars anyway.

Key difference is non selective intake.

That can only work in larger schools.

As I said up thread, my comprehensive was fairly small and the top set ended up with kids that shouldn't have been in the class - but the school couldn't really have a bottom set containing 35 kids and a top set containing 25 kids.

The only way that a comprehensive could allow the brightest children to move at the pace of a grammar would be to have massive schools with multiple sets - e.g. elite, top1, top2, upper1, upper2, upper3, middle1, middle 2, middle3, middle4, middle5, middle 6, lower1, lower2, lower3, bottom1, bottom2, leaning disabilities1.

That would be at least 18 classes per year group in an attempt to accommodate the normal distribution of abilities and just isn't realistic anywhere but the inner cities.

A separate 'elite school' covering a large rural area is the only practical solution.

DD is in the top set for STEMof an averaged comp... it covers children aiming for 7-9 in GCSEs and is top 25% of her half year group. (A and A+ in Old notation!)

11+ areas like Kent take top 25%... and may not do setting. So its actually the same ability level.

The grammar will also have sets, so the top 25% are then subdivided into maybe 5 classes. The top set of a grammar will therefore be the top 5% which just can't be accommodated in the same way at a comprehensive.

Grammar school to have many sets is generally not effective and is the main source of pressure to the kids. In another words, there is little gain to separate ability at top 5% va top 15% in the comprehensive cohort. Same applies to grammar schools.

The grammar that i attended for a-levels had sets, as did the rest of the school.

It's, apparently, in the top 50 of UK schools. 🤷‍♀️

@ThisOldThang you write as if those in comps have no chance of ever being as good as those in grammars. It's weird.
You said 'The only way that a comprehensive could allow the brightest children to move at the pace of a grammar would be to have massive schools with multiple sets.'
I can assure you that plenty of comprehensive students can move at pace and at an elite level.

No, OP it would be absolute carnage and force kids to travel long distances to school for the sake of ‘equality’. And what about students living rurally and not in ‘boroughs’?

So, is there any causation relationship between the number of sets and the results? Perhaps a already selective school with fewer sets will make it to the top 30 instead of the top 50? 🤷‍♀️

@nervouslandlord

I attended a 'bog standard' comp until the age of 16 and then moved to a grammar for a-levels.

Having experienced both schools, I can say that the grammar churned out Oxbridge students and the comp churned out the benefits underclass (5 girls in my tutor group were pregnant by the end of the 'summer holidays' after our GCSEs).

A teacher laughed in my face when I said I was planning to go to university.

I did exceptionally well in my GCSEs and nobody at the grammar has better results than me on paper, but the comp had shopped around for the easiest examination boards and I only had the option of combined science. I then went into A-level chemistry without even knowing what a 'mole' was. The grammar, on the hand, used the Oxford/Cambridge exams.

The comp's standard of education was seriously lacking and we were very much taught to the exam.

You're deluded if you think the average comp is catering to the needs of the brightest children.

They can, but that’s because in the comps where that’s possible, the really badly behaved kids have been moved into a lower group regardless of their ability. This is generally in theory discouraged but in practice it happens A LOT. Then the lower ability kids end up switching off or not getting adequate provision because they’ve got all the horrors in with them.

@Moglet4 I was talking to a retired teacher today and he mentioned that very problem. There were plenty of nice kids, that wanted to learn, in the bottom sets, but their education was ruined by the disruptive element.

He said that one of his schools initially tried 'true comprehensive' schooling without sets, but that was abandoned due to staff revolt because it was clear that it could never work in practice.

I did exceptionally well in my GCSEs and nobody at the grammar has better results than me on paper.

Vs

You're deluded if you think the average comp is catering to the needs of the brightest children.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

I think a lot of comprehensive students go to high performing sixth-form at their own will, with less influences from pushy parents ans tutoring. Personally I won't against some selection based on GCSE at age 16, but certainly against the idea of 11+.

There were plenty of nice kids, that wanted to learn, in the bottom sets, but their education was ruined by the disruptive element.

And probably the grammar school in the same area cream off the top abilities child contribute to this.

I'm not sure what all those emojis are supposed to mean.

On paper, the comp was a 'success', but in reality it failed me massively and put me at a huge disadvantage for A-levels. Can you imagine how much catching up was required?

Sure, I could have gone to another comp, that also shopped around the examination boards for the easiest papers, for A-levels - but where would that have left me when starting university?

Research has shown, for the same A level results, on a high level, students from comprehensive school students perform better at university.

www.theguardian.com/education/2013/jun/16/accesstouniversity-private-schools

It says 'state' do better than 'private' and then uses that to argue that priority should be given to comprehensive pupils.

Grammar schools are state schools and they're not even mentioned in that article.

I don't doubt that grammar and comprehensive students do better than private kids at university, but that doesn't negate the need for grammars.

Here is an up to date one specific for nonselective school vs grammar.

https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/berj.3929

"Our analysis of data from the Next Steps longitudinal survey linked to National Pupil Database records finds that propensities to enrol in higher education generally, and at prestigious Russell Group universities specifically, are no better for grammar school pupils than for non-selective state school pupils with the same level of attainment at GCSE and A-level. This nil effect of grammar school attendance on progression to higher education net of the effects of educational attainment holds regardless of pupils' socioeconomic background, suggesting that grammar schools are no better than non-selective state schools"

"Our analysis of data from the Next Steps longitudinal survey linked to National Pupil Database records finds that propensities to enrol in higher education generally, and at prestigious Russell Group universities specifically, are no better for grammar school pupils than for non-selective state school pupils with the same level of attainment at GCSE and A-level. This nil effect of grammar school attendance on progression to higher education net of the effects of educational attainment holds regardless of pupils' socioeconomic background, suggesting that grammar schools are no better than non-selective state schools"

Err - I read that completely differently. Of course, those attaining the same at a worse comp will do well later on - they may have done well DESPITE the terrible comp (there will of course be excellent comps too but some are not and so it includes both types), so they were in effect actually cleverer than those at grammar getting the same results. It shows precisely that you will get better results at a grammar, less disruption, more clever kids etc.
There really are not many inadequate grammars are there? Grammars were much more likely to be Ofsted outstanding, until the recent political crackdown. They also generally have great results. As of July 2022, 80% of grammars were rated outstanding vs 19% of comps at the time.