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

That is also old old data now.

@Overturnedmum Based upon them having the same grades at GCSE and A-level...

If the data showed that universities were favouring grammar kids over comp kids with the same grades, wouldn't that be a scandal?

The whole point of grammars is to provide the brightest kids with a suitable education and I think it's highly doubtful they'd achieve the same grades at a bog standard comp.

it is much healthier to have children going to the nearest school they can walk to than spending a long time on buses/in the car.

I think only very few people, aka those who read public exam result by ignoring the most important intake selective factor, will interpret the research result like that.

"The whole point of grammars is to provide the brightest kids with a suitable education "

Here is another one:

https://newsroom.taylorandfrancisgroup.com/no-evidence-grammar-school-systems-are-best-for-the-brightest-study-of-500000-pupils-reveals/

" Findings, published in the peer-reviewed journal Educational Review, demonstrate those with the highest scores at age 11 were less likely to achieve five top GCSE grades if they went to grammar school than if they attended a comprehensive, once other background factors were taken into account"

Do you have any old or new data to suggest otherwise? Except the own wishful thinking?

One type of setting hasn't been discussed... UTCs.

DD has expressed relief that some if the ore disruptive boys have left for the engineering UTC (for Yr9) .. my understanding is this is more practical based so hopefully its a positive environment for them.

(Girls can also attend, but she doesn't know any who are going!(

How come you moved to grammar for A levels? Did you move to new area with grammar schools, or did you already live in an area with grammar schools? Or was the "bog-standard comp" you attended for GCSEs actually a secondary modern and not a comprehensive school at all?

It is a really big problem and schools are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Ideally, sets should always be decided by ability but then everyone’s education is disrupted or even ruined. That’s why many schools end up opting for naughty kids in bottom sets but it’s really unfair on the well-behaved kids who actually should be in them.

They can achieve the same grades but they won’t have received anything like the same education, especially since Gove’s meddling.

What are the stats at Oxford? Grammar vs Comp. I bet the grammars produce a higher percentage in relation to numbers in these schools. Dc in poor comps get special consideration at Bristol and get a lower offer.

It's not just about results though. I suspect the grammar students are better prepared in terms of practice papers and mock interviews.

I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. My DD went to an independent school and didn’t get that. However I don’t know what the stats are. Surely comps are failing dc if they don’t provide for the brightest ones?

Not true, Oxford actually publish their statistic yearly, nonselective comprehensive and academy and sixth form college make up 50% of the intake. Selective state grammar about 15%.

For both Oxford and Cambridge, Comprehensive schools have become the largest intake by school type in recent years. Previously, private schools had the largest intake. Grammar schools likely rank third, on par with state sixth-form colleges.

I lived outside the grammar catchment area and attended a comprehensive (it wasn't a secondary modern). The school was GCSE only, so I had to change schools for A-levels.

Are we defining comprehensives that have a minimum gcse requirement to do A levels as “non selective comprehensives” because they don’t select at 11, but clearly do at 16?

Because a non-selective school near me has just raised its minimum requirement to study a subject at a level from a gcse 6 to a 7. To get a 7 at gcse in a subject you need to have got 70% correct and around 22% of students got 7 or above, that compares pretty well to the 11+ where you need around 75% to pass.

the vast majority of schools and colleges are selective for years 12-13.

Exactly, in my area pretty much everywhere is selective at Sixth Form and not just on entry, also to do certain specific subjects. Doing Maths is particularly selective.

I think the most important point highlighted on this thread so far, in my opinion, is that naughty children who do not behave and are disruptive should be in their own set, away from the lowest ability children who want to learn, who deserve to learn and need to learn most.

Behaviour management classes, fully funded. For most kids, it would hopefully be temporary, life coaching/mental health/figuring out what is wrong and why they are attention seeking, perhaps some struggles at home or struggles with certain subjects, undiagnosed learning difficulties etc.
And perhaps also an acknowledgement that some bright under-stretched kids may also misbehave.

Agree - I just checked DD's comprehensive school's 6th form admissions requirements and they are more draconian than one of the better known super-selective London grammars.

Checked against the grammar I attended and it's far harder to get a place at DD's comp at 16+.

Perhaps that superselection is why, as some people have been claiming, comps are doing better than grammars?

😉

This thread has also made me realise that I probably did choose grammar for my high achieving DC because it would be more “equality” for them as individuals. There are of course many comps where the high achievers get loads of resources and attention, but we already had the experience in primary school that they were often left to their own devices to get on with harder work, but no teacher or TA attention, and like any parent, even though the schools get less funding overall, they are just better off and happier in a grammar.

As a reminder, “equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognises that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.”

I mean why would I sacrifice my own DC to a notion of equity? It makes zero sense on an individual level and as a parent if I have a local excellent grammar school. Unless there is a huge local comp too where high achievers do indeed reach the same outcomes. They do not where we are - there is no Latin, no multiple modern languages, no Ad Maths GCSE as standard either.

Not deluded at all. My son was in all top sets, he just got a range of 8s and 9s in GCSE. Everyone in top set got the same support as those in lower sets, got the same about of after school revision sessions, and got the same individual support from teachers. Maybe that was the way in your school but it's certainly not the norm.

@Overturnedmum You have not understood my question. Looking at Oxford, is there a higher proportion of offers to grammar pupils when you look at the numbers in each type of school? I think the grammars punch higher? There are only 163 grammars. There are over 2,000 secondary independents. So which school has the best outcomes?

Once again, a thread about education/education reform has become a thread about what people think is the best option for the highest ability kids and the best way to get to Oxbridge. 😢