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 think it is, rather it’s using Oxbridge entry as a proxy for academic success as the data is readily available.

@converseandjeans you said the following;

Well yes because SEN children would probably find the work challenging.
Why can't academic children have an environment which suits them. I understand that SEN children need support but they do get that in mainstream school.
Do you also want sets banned? Top set students would be unlikely to be in the same group as SEN students. It's unlikely they would mix socially too.

You clearly have a rather ignorant and preconceived idea that children with SEN cannot be academic. And would never be able to compete with NT children, academically. Do you not think that your statements above suggest this?

I would not want my children to be taught by someone who has low expectations for them. Now I can see why some parents are so anxious about their child having a diagnosis if this is what teachers generally think.

To make a fair comparison, you should evaluate equivalent criteria. For instance, consider the selection rates for grammar school at 11+, which might be 20%, and then the progression rate from grammar school to Oxbridge, which could be 10%, resulting in an overall rate of 2%. Then, compare this with the percentage of comprehensive school students who go to Oxbridge, which might be 3%.

Did your son attend an average comp? What examination boards did the school choose?

Looking at the area I grew up in, the worst performing comp had 37% of pupils getting 5 GCSEs.

Without performing a calculation, the mean is around 50% and the modal is 50-55%.

One grammar school has 100% (to be expected given the entrance exam).

The highest non-selective is 76%, but that's a Catholic school.

Value added scores are the most important thing to consider when looking at the average comprehensive school. Because that shows ability to get the best from a child, according to baselines when they joined.

@Emmanuelll

But it is pretty obvious that if you initially rate the children as being a bit below their actual level, then you'll automatically get more 'value added' without the child having to progress.

I, personally, wouldn't pay too much attention to those numbers because they're so easy to manipulate in order to make the teachers and school look better.

Grammar schools conduct two rounds of selection: initially at 11+ and then again at 16+. I’ve never encountered a grammar school that doesn’t mandate a minimum GCSE or equivalent standard for students to progress to A levels.

Students from Comprehensive school normally only required selective to sixth form. That is when the point of public exam GCSE happened and much acceptable and universal compare to 11 plus exam due to various reasons :

Students are more developed academically and personally by 16. A broad education up to 16 helps in making more suitable subject choices independently. Less stress on younger students, allowing them to focus on a wide range of subjects. Much much less influencing by tutoring and pushy parents.

This happens because the grammar school ij your area already cream off the "top" kids, which negatively impacts other nearby schools

I really think some people are deluded if they think parents don’t tutor and push for GCSE ! I live in a grammar area, and to be fair, most kids who go to the grammars aren’t tutored for gcse, but there is a huge amount of tutoring going on in secondary level for those who didn’t go to grammar. It’s just accepted you’ll tutored for maths and English, possibly science as well.

They are based on SATs results and GCSE results.
Its been pointed out that one of the schools with the highest "Progress 8" is a bots Superselective.

most kids who go to the grammars aren’t tutored for gcse

most kids who go to grammar tutor before 11+ and do that again at 16+, esp in grammar area.

You should go to your nearest school.
Walking distance preferably.

Focus on the bad ones - they're not bad because there are cheaper houses around them.
They're bad because of the people living in those houses.
So why transport those people to the good schools?!
Work on sorting the bad school's children's behaviour.

Progress 8 is kind of misleading at a way. Because high abilities (with influence from family background) are highly correlated to high progress. Grammar school pre-select the abilities + social backgrounds.

So if you want to do fair comparison, one should look at comprehensive student progress in across different set to have fair comparison to grammar school.

And you would normally see the higher prior attinment, the better the process 8 in general.

That's really not the case in my experience. The education at my local grammar, coupled with the fact the DC were reasonably bright to start with, is good enough to get top grades without tutoring. GCSE tutoring was pretty rare.

I’m in a grammar area, there really isn’t a lot of tutoring for grammar students at gcse, although mainly because the schools themselves do a lot more push on those who are struggling when they get there.

The money in gcse tutoring is mainly earned from kids at the non-grammars. The biggest demand is getting maths and English from predicted 5s to 6s. (Getting those at 6 generally means they can get on the A level courses they want.)

I’m sure there are some kids who are at the grammar schools getting extra paid tutoring in some subjects, but it’s not really where the main demand is.

In a grammar school area, about the top 30% of students go to grammar school via the 11-plus exam, where everyone needs tutoring.

Is it news that fewer students require tutoring for GCSEs compared to other schools that admit less able students from year 7 onwards? Is this due to pre-selection or the quality of the school? Isn’t this an example of how grammar school areas can damage the overall local education outcomes?

The easiest way to manipulate the data to make the school look good is to take in students via exam in the first place. Sorted.

Notoriously, in Germany, for students with the same achievement, teachers' recommendations about the suitability of Gymnasium were rather different for the children of doctors and the children of dustmen. I prefer an examination based system.

I prefer an examination based system.

Agree. But I don't think 11 plus is the right exam at the right age either.

@shockeditellyou "I don’t think it is, rather it’s using Oxbridge entry as a proxy for academic success as the data is readily available"

That's even more bizarre and a ridiculous measure. It's perfectly possible to be extremely academically successful without being the sort of person who is able to, or who wants to go to Oxbridge.

@Overturnedmum - firstly not everyone tutors for the 11+.

foes removing the top 25% effect the next 25% students? If kids are taught in sets, that’s removing the top set of maths, those who wouldn’t be in that set anyway, would it negatively effect them to have those kids taught elsewhere?

you said up thread that the GCSEs of grammars are down to tutoring, I was just explaining in our area there aren’t many who tutor at gcse level in the grammar system. The money in tutoring at that level isn’t getting 8s and 9s, it’s turning 5s to 6s.

@FancyBiscuitsLevel -
firstly not everyone tutors for the 11+.

The vast majority do tutor for 11+ (either by paid tutor or parents do it themself).

foes removing the top 25% effect the next 25% students? If kids are taught in sets, that’s removing the top set of maths, those who wouldn’t be in that set anyway, would it negatively effect them to have those kids taught elsewhere?

It does, this is because research found that im the selective area there is negative effect on nearby schools by many reasons, for example

https://www.durham.ac.uk/news-events/latest-news/2023/08/grammar-school-system-does-not-boost-grades-and-could-be-detrimental-to-some--/

"The researchers suggested this could be due to the negative effects of stress and competitiveness generated by the selective system, which could impact on pupil wellbeing.

For those pupils in selective areas who do not get a place at grammar school, they may also experience a lack of role models, a sense of failure and higher concentration of disadvantages pupils in school, which may impede progress"

you said up thread that the GCSEs of grammars are down to tutoring, I was just explaining in our area there aren’t many who tutor at gcse level in the grammar system. The money in tutoring at that level isn’t getting 8s and 9s, it’s turning 5s to 6s.

Ok maybe in your grammar area it is, in the grammar area I know, a lot of money in tutoring in grammar school for pushing their kids to top. GCSE grades, if not doing more than the local comp. Because the grammar school parents believe in tutoring, and they are normally those who can afford tutor (they did that from primary school age anyway)

No it has not @CurlewKate - we are discussing different types of school. There is no norm, that is the whole point. People have different experiences in different types of schools, in different regions etc etc There is no one size fits all, there is no one type of setting, there is no generalising. And that is exactly why political ideology and too much central government control over both education and health is completely bonkers.

The parents of grammar school students often perceive a strong need for high-ability children to thrive in an environment that comprehensive schools cannot provide. Some refer to these children as talented or gifted, and they often mention terms like ‘beyond A-level’ or ‘Oxbridge’ as examples.

However, statistics just suggest that this perception may be just a wishful thinking.

A lot of people ageee with the principle of having more ‘free schools’ to increase local influence in running the school. But I think one of the fundamental principles should be to make these schools more accessible and beneficial to the local area. One key principle is to avoid selection by the 11-plus exam. New "free schools*currently are set up as nonselective across the country.