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.

We have a local free school, all boys. They do not set for Maths at all until Year 9. So that was out of the question for both of my boys, one of whom scored 95% on GCSEs in Year 5.

Some of the best mathematician spot by UKMT competition in this country, are from comprehensive schools. Doesn't seem to be out of questions by those children.

@Araminta1003 "No it has not @CurlewKate - we are discussing different types of school. There is no norm, that is the whole "

The discussion seems to be mostly about comprehensive schools from 20 years ago and grammar schools. Silence on the schools 90% of kids go to NOW. And even more silence on the impact of grammar schools on the 75% or more on the catchment who don't go to them.

@CurlewKate - I was not talking about Kent/Bucks type grammars - as mine go to superselective London grammars with either no catchment or huge catchment and they do not have impact on the local secondaries. What they may arguably do is bump up the KS2 SATs results in some of the local primaries because a lot of people do give it a go. If anything those kids then enter the comps mainly at a higher level due to preparation and so the comps actually end up doing better.

And West Kent for example - some of the secondary moderns now have a “grammar stream” too to deal with out of county high achieving London applicants and kids who narrowly missed the Kent test or just missed out in one area of the Kent test. As long as the schools are big enough, the outcome is fine for most kids. Look at Sevenoaks area, for example, low depravity, the secondary moderns are doing well. Or Tunbridge Wells.

And without grammar schools perhaps the result will be even better

This thread was meant to discuss access to good schools (defined in so many different ways) no matter where you live, ideally within walking distance of your home. I agree with a pp that's it's getting a bit derailed by grammar vs comp, with a giant elephant in the room getting completely ignored. No, not private. Just sticking with state, from the top 100 schools in the country so so so many are faith schools, either C of E or Catholic. How come no one talks about these or takes them into consideration for selectivity bias? These schools are decidedly not comps as they are NOT open to all, but do have mixed ability intakes - who all go on to do exceptionally well. Because: behaviour and parental cohesion in terms of shared values. Intake is everything. Homogeneity of parental background (whether by faith, by income or educational aspiration for offspring) does breed better outcomes. Comps will always suffer compared to every other type of school because while they might be able to set by ability they are so so restricted in being able to set by or manage out bad behaviour. And it's going to get even harder to do that, given new policy changes. We have so many different models of education existing alongside each other, some way more successful than others. I do think though, looking at top schools nationwide, comps simply can't compare to grammars, faith schools or private, all of whom restrict intake and end up with a better experience for their pupils. Comps will always vary wildly across the country in terms of provision and quality because of this one variable. And people will always move house towards the "better" options, away from comps. To grammar if that option exists, or faith if it doesn't. Or private if they can afford it, even if the results aren't particularly better than state.

(I don't have a solution btw, I'm just rambling on my thoughts).

If anything those kids then enter the comps mainly at a higher level due to preparation and so the comps actually end up doing better.

Another wishful thinking without evidence again. So superselective grammar no impact to local students and actually improve local secondary school standard......

I guess anyone can say the opposite too lol.

@SurroundSoundLol I totally get what you are saying, and I think it just goes to show that a critical mass of high parental expectation is essential to drive school progress. Our faith-based secondary has all sorts - from recent immigrants where parents don’t speak English and work in unskilled jobs through to children of world leading scientists, but they all value education.

You cannot use a school to drive parental improvements. And until you have all parents valuing education then the sink schools won’t improve significantly, despite the huge efforts of people working there. Most parents who value education won’t risk their kids in a school where there isn’t a critical mass of likeminded parents and children - and why would they if they had any other option?

@SurroundSoundLol Getting rid of Faith schools is a key part of my blue sky solution.

I think it might be true, although I also have no evidence. For example we live in Walthamstow, which has a poor range of secondaries for boys. Lots of children are being tutored to have a try at Latymer or the Redbridge grammar schools, but most won't get in, and will go to the local schools in better shape than if they had been fully reliant on the solid but academically unambitious local primaries.

Just sticking with state, from the top 100 schools in the country so so so many are faith schools, either C of E or Catholic.

What are the top 100 school you referring to by what measurement?

And people will always move house towards the "better" options, away from comps. To grammar if that option exists, or faith if it doesn't. Or private if they can afford it, even if the results aren't particularly better than state.

What if, at least for state education level , these options become universally the same across the country? I.e no selective intake, catchment assign by a fair random policy? I don't know about faith school i think that is harder to tackle. But wouldn't this will make sure parents less focus on school label or ranking but more focus on the essence of secondary education?

One would argue, if these kids didn't spend the time they did tutoring but for other activities (as their parent will do anyway) . They might be in a better shape in the local school in the long run.

I taught in a Catholic school for a hit. It wasn't being Catholic that made it better... it was the parents being supportive. The extra hoops they had to jump through (baptism, church attendance, getting into the right Primary School) made for parents invested in education and therefore supportive of the school.

Making it non faith won't automatically mean that success continues.

The kids who are tutored do plenty of other activities.

So means without the presence of Latymer or Redbridge they will probably be perform as well, or even better because they have more time and less stress to develop at year 5 and 6

@Overturnedmum I'm using nothing more than a generic list on the Times parent power, which many parents use.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/article/best-uk-secondary-schools-league-table-f8fk0q560

(Use 12ft.io to get around the paywall)

The best state "comps" on the list aren't true comps at all, but are faith schools.

I do get what you and curlykate are trying to achieve, I truly do, and trying to correct disadvantage and inequities in provision is a very noble pursuit. But it is also an impossible one, as in trying to achieve it you remove choice and agency from regular people. That's why you are getting push back from people saying it's like North Korea etc, however hyperbolic that may be.

If everything was banned except for true comps it would absolutely not suit everyone at all. People in our multicultural society do have preferences on faith, gender, socio economic needs, SEND, high ability, low ability, future ambitions, sports, music etc etc. One local school cannot serve all those needs. We either ban everything or nothing. I'm in the ban nothing camp as who am I to tell others how to educate their children or live their lives? I might grit my teeth and be enraged that my kid can't get into the great faith school at our doorstep, or isn't smart enough or hardworking enough to get into the grammar, or not rich enough to get into the private, but morally, I should not take that choice away from parents who can do those things.

"or isn't smart enough or hardworking enough to get into the grammar,"

If it was just a matter of being "smart or hardworking" it wouldn't be so bad. But it's about privilege and social class. And that is an absolutely immoral way to run an education system.

So we should race to the bottom?

Schools are also at the heart of local communities. Why destroy that? You will end up with greater social problems.

As for transport that isn't going to be viable. Why pays for that? The parents just about getting buy and have to fork out for transport. Then what about all the opportunities lost because the kids can't do the local afternoon school club because they are stuck on a bus.

And then the additional traffic because of all the extra parents doing the school run when their kid could otherwise walk.

How about dealing with behavioural issues and improving teacher retention instead? And appropriate support for SEN needs? And better social support and pastoral care for those struggling complete with funding. Surely that's better than pissing money pointlessly on huge numbers of buses that don't currently exist.

Your idea is totally ridiculous.

I do get what you and curlykate are trying to achieve, I truly do, and trying to correct disadvantage and inequities in provision is a very noble pursuit. But it is also an impossible one, as in trying to achieve it you remove choice and agency from regular people. That's why you are getting push back from people saying it's like North Korea etc, however hyperbolic that may be.

Lets not go as far as North Korea, why not look at Western Europe and Scandinavia, the education systems generally do not include grammar schools or the 11-plus exam system as seen in parts of the UK. Emphasis in these regions is often on providing equal educational opportunities and avoiding early academic selection, which contrasts with the selective grammar school system in the UK. You claim that is a mission impossible in this country but that is norm in the neighbourhood country including Scotland and Wales.....

I agree the top ranking from comp are a lot of faith schools. That implies a certain way of social selection, which is not equal in principles however why not at least try to tackle the one that you can first?

All the comprehensives are outside the catchment area for the grammar. A handful of children do attend the grammars, but not nearly enough to explain the low results at the comprehensives.

I appreciate that it's hard to accept when you're ideologically opposed to grammars, but the average UK comprehensive is pretty poor when you're outside the major cities.

Scandinavia is a very homogenous country unlike UK. A lot of other countries do stream, e.g. in Germany kids go either to (equivalents of) grammar or comp and it's close to impossible to get to Uni after comp.

I didn't check results for Scotland, but Wales isn't know for topping league tables

I appreciate that it's hard to accept when you're ideologically opposed to grammars, but the average UK comprehensive is pretty poor when you're outside the major cities

Do you have any data or concrete evidence to back up your claim?

While I understand that you believe grammar schools produce good results, it might simply be because they select their students in the first place, and most of these kids parents can afford time and money to tutor their kids.

A lot of other countries? Can you name a few Western countries that use the 11-plus exam to stream students at age 10? Even the German Gymnasium system, though controversial, does not use the 11-plus exam. It is applied universally across the country and is well integrated into higher-level education.

Wales isn't know for topping league tables

Is it because the school has less social selection in the first place? Why not compared that to area with similar economic development as Wales?

Except most kids in grammar aren’t tutored once they get there and no kid who isn’t bright already is going to pass the 11+