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 was too quick to answer. I'm most familiar with NYC and they do give the SHSAT to 8th graders. Boston Public Schools gives exams to 6th graders (11 year olds) as well as 8th graders, while Chicago Public Schools administers written exams as early as 4th grade (9 year olds) and assessments from pre-school (4 year olds) for their "selective elementary schools". Again, there are many different systems in the US.

Your view on that might depend on whether you're a doctor or a dustman.

I don’t think excess travel is good for the emotional health of DCs either, as well as being costly and bad for the environment. It’s a no go.

@Araminta1003 I used the word "disadvantaged" not "poorer". There is a significant difference.

And @Araminta1003 a step out of disadvantage that relies on people under 10 stepping out of disadvantage before they can take advantage of it is a bit Alice in Wonderland.

@CurlewKate - there are so many more urgent things facing truly disadvantaged children than scrapping grammar schools. Why not focus on why eg vapes have been allowed to take hold in the last couple of years? Childhood obesity? Emotional abuse and neglect?

@Overturnedmum - London grammars are largely in the suburbs and require some travel (and associated effort and cost). As that requires organisation and willingness to sacrifice time, it does not attract disadvantaged and chaotic families who often rely on children to act as carers, clean up etc. Grammars have tried to lower thresholds to up FSM - take up has been low. There is simply less appetite from this type of family to expend energy/effort on education.

Boston exam schools, the majority of new intakes are for grades 7 and 9, which typically include students aged 12-15 when they sit the exam. The admissions process does take a holistic approach, considering not just exam scores but also GPA, residency, and other contextual factors. The exam score only forms a small portion of the final outcome decision. This approach aims to create a more equitable and comprehensive evaluation of each applicant.

For Chicago CPS or SEES, it is more like the partial selective comprehensive school in England, among the total intake some students are entry by exam, some are based on catchment, and some other are randomised distributed among test tier to make sure the proportional ability make up in the school.

Thanks for restate the fact that grammar schools do not help social mobility.

Quote your own comment above:

London grammars are largely in the suburbs and require some travel (and associated effort and cost). As that requires organisation and willingness to sacrifice time.

@Araminta1003 "there are so many more urgent things facing truly disadvantaged children than scrapping grammar schools. "

But this is a thread about education and many people are talking grammar schools. And it a selective areas it is a very important issue, however hard grammar supporters try to pretend is isn't. Yes, there are a lot of other issues...happy to discuss those on other threads.

@CurlewKate and @Overturnedmum

What advantage do you think abolishing grammar schools will provide to disadvantaged kids? Do you think it will actually improve their education (if so, how?) or do you think the improvements to inequality will come from the 'advantaged' kids not progressing as well as they would in a grammar?

@Overturnedmum - grammar schools can help local kids though with engaged parents who are economically disadvantaged. In London, they do not negatively affect other schools.
If there is no evidence for negative effect, then why scrap? Makes zero sense. Especially if they get such good results on low funding.

I am only a grammar supporter in so far that our local schools on a free direct bus route (10-15 minutes away) where easily accessible for my kids. I would prefer them to have a smaller catchment actually, but not so small to negatively affect our local schools. Most of the grammar recommend the parents do not put their own DCs through more than 45 minutes door to door travel time. Some parents ignore the advice.

ComprehensiveFuture know full well that grammars and independents are entirely unrelated to truly disadvantaged kids. It is just a bee in their bonnet, historically speaking, could not scrap all grammars at the time, will not give up.

Faith schools they know the church owns the land. Same as independents. No cash to get to these types of schools. Independents are being attacked from the side. Would not be surprised if there is some new church school requirement to up funds either, at the moment 10 per cent is self funded. Death by small blows.

“Thanks for restate the fact that grammar schools do not help social mobility.”

@Overturnedmum - I never said that, I said they can help educationally motivated economically disadvantaged parents who put in the effort. It all depends on your definition of social mobility. Why does it have to be from the very lowest rank? Why not just one rank up? That is my definition of social mobility. Ask any economic migrant to this country who sent their DC to grammar - absolutely will elevate from corner shop owner to lawyer/medic. It is born out in the statistics.

Whoever said social mobility has to mean from complete rags to absolute riches? It does not. Education is meant to elevate one rung at the time or at most two.

do you think the improvements to inequality will come from the 'advantaged' kids not progressing as well as they would in a grammar

It will make secondary school admission more fairer and universal for sure.

And research evidence has shown that there is no benefit for the kids to progress in a grammar compared to comprehensive schools.

So you agree that in your current grammar that you support, a lot of kids travel very far and take a lot of time already right?

“And research evidence has shown that there is no benefit for the kids to progress in a grammar compared to comprehensive schools.“

Do you really think you can fool us with your artificial progess measures? Do you really think we believe that KS2 SATS to GCSEs is a measure for an academically gifted child capable of so much more at both those levels?

“So you agree that in your current grammar that you support, a lot of kids travel very far and take a lot of time already right?”

No I don’t agree, the ones who usually sign up to too longer commute usually then move closer by Year 9 at the latest. It is mostly temporary and a tiny proportion of kids.

"And research evidence has shown that there is no benefit for the kids to progress in a grammar compared to comprehensive schools."

My lived experience says the complete opposite. 🤷‍♀️

If there's no benefit, why are you so opposed to them?

I, personally, can't see any way that abolishing grammars will reduce inequality unless there is actually an advantage to attending a grammar and you want to remove that advantage (dragging down). That won't actually help disadvantaged kids, it will just even things up in the stats.

Social mobility I meant any form of rank up. And research had long shown that grammar school does not work.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37311018

The advantage is an preception and such preception actually causes more harm. It is not a zero sum game

It is really not perception. The local boys grammar - almost 50% of those doing Maths A level are also doing Further Maths. It is a completely different kettle of fish than any of the local comps. Sorry to burst your bubble. And it is superselective aka no catchment and very Maths heavy on entry at 11 plus. It simply caters to boys who are gifted in Maths at primary level and they sustain that.

There is no positive effects in terms of academic attainment and social mobility on grammar school. In grammar areas (some in London too), has negative effect on nearby schools.

Sorry you are still living in a bubble Go to a high performing sixth-form, for exam some maths school, you will see a lot of boys from comprehensive school do exactly the same and with even better results.