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.

So they have the same holidays, making childcare and holidays easier to sort. So they can hand-me-down school uniform. So they can travel together and be a support to each other to make a few

I wouldn’t bother. This poster has become absolutely entrenched in an immovable yet highly inaccurate mindset. They clearly have no direct experience of the schools they abhor and no direct comparison either from which to make accurate evaluative comments. They are never going to budge despite not actually having a clue what they’re talking about. There are other anti selective school posters who make sensible points and are willing to listen to those who have direct experience of a range of schools, whether as teachers, pupils or parents and it is possible to have a sensible discussion with them.

This

Statistics show that grammar schools do not help social mobility, with the percentage of students on FSM being five times lower than the average.

Grammar school supporter: Oh, it’s no surprise FSM families not able to join us. After all, we are the dedicated parents who have the luxury of time and money to feed our kids vitamins and tutor them from an early age. Clearly, grammar schools are designed for families like ours to climb the social ladder.

Research evidence shows that the UK’s brightest pupils’ chances of getting top GCSE grades are actually lower in grammar schools than in comprehensives when other factors are accounted for.

Grammar school supporter: GCSE grades? Pfft, they mean nothing. Comprehensives just cheat by using easier exam boards. My kids’ A-level learning experience is so advanced and in-depth, they’re on track for top universities like Oxbridge. Our grammar school experience 20 years ago was unparalleled.

Research evidence shows that selective schools don’t increase the chance of a university place or job. Statistics show that comprehensive schools and sixth-form colleges are the majority intake for Oxbridge universities.

Grammar school supporter: Oh, but Oxbridge doesn’t like grammar students anymore; they prefer comprehensive students. I want my kids to end up at MIT.

MIT research shows that selective schools were not effective in enhancing students’ grades.

Grammar school supporter: Let’s just ignore the MIT research; it doesn’t make sense and must be fake. What we think is what truly matters.

So it's middle class parents fault that people don't ensure their kids go to school.

Shouldn't we encourage parents to take a bit of ownership and responsibility?

Why do second generation Asian kids whose parents clearly value education do so well on average even when coming from a deprived background?

If momentum stopped blaming everyone but those involved then maybe education and discipline could be improved.

@Baldrick23 - not just that, I think it must also be middle class SE parents’ fault, especially grammars parents, that the SE outperforms the NE and Midlands. It is all our fault really, we have the broadest shoulders and most pushy elbows.

I do think though the main point in answer to the thread though is that scrapping school catchments won’t help disadvantaged children. It may help some kids who cannot buy their way into a catchment, but that is not the same as proper disadvantage.

We cannot keep making excuses for disruptive disadvantaged “children” (anyone under 18 or is it 16 if rioting?) who then go on to fail to get or keep jobs or worse, turn to crime and rioting. The help has to happen in the early year, early to mid primary so that the systems are in place before they become teens when things are more likely to break down. Respect for education and teachers and others in the classroom has to be instilled somehow (despite the parenting). The question is how. The blame game does not work. Especially not blaming those who actually do everything right anyway and carry society not just financially but are wiling to sacrifice their own DC to the next generation hamster wheel. Perhaps we middle class educationally motivated parents are the mugs? Perhaps we should just let our kids have an easy right and party and vape their way through teenage hood and have some fun.

If you take an exam to determine where you go for 7th grade, you take that exam while you are in 6th grade. In most of the US, that's children who turn 11 before the start of the school year.

I'm not that familiar with Chicago Public Schools but my reading is that priority to the exam selective schools is strictly by test score. Priority to the non-selective schools is by catchment, then randomized. Where did you see any reference to scores for the non-selective "neighborhood" schools, even for out of catchment applicants?

TBH, this level of detail is probably a distraction at this point. You asked, so I'm simply pointing out that there are significant parts of "the West" that do use selective and partially selective and, for that matter, ballot across a wide area, admissions policies at both the middle school and secondary school levels.

I claim that doctors might prefer a system where their children are considered "university material" by default, and receive recommendations to the university track unless they demonstrate that they are not suitable. I claim that dustmen might prefer a different system, one where the teacher's prejudices are minimized, even if it might involve exams.

@user149799568 - in certain parts of Germany can you not elect to take the exams if you disagree with the teacher’s assessment? That is how it is done in certain cantons in Switzerland, my DS tells me. He says the Swiss at ETH are all grammar school educated but the various cantons have totally different paths. He has a friend from Basel and they are comp until last 4 years but in streams whereas Zurich is more 11 plus old school style.

there are significant parts of "the West" that do use selective and partially selective

My question is not if selective exist in the West. I am not against, for example, exam based selection at sixth-form or university level. Or to some extent a school with partial selective aspect to make sure a good mix in the school environment.

A crucial aspect of my question is the selective process and age. Which other countries have a state education system that relies entirely on a single entrance exam taken at age 10 to advance to the next educational level between ages 10 and 12.

I guess you have already given the answer.

@Overturnedmum - out of interest, do you also believe that private schools including selective private schools add no value to a child’s outcome?

Does external schooling actually even add any value to an educationally advantaged child? Should I just have worked 20-40
per cent and homeschooled? Would have been far more relaxing for us as a household and seems like you think outcome would be the same or better.

In your opinion, if grammar adds no value, does school full stop add value?

do you also believe that private schools including selective private schools add no value to a child’s outcome

The exam selective part of private school, does not add value to a child's outcome. However one can not ignore, the private school, in UK, have 3 times more budget per student compared to state funded school. And yes, no body can deny money can buy value add to education to some extent.

if grammar adds no value, does school full stop add value?

School use funding to provide education, grammar adds no value is compared and benchmark against to the comprehensive school using the same funding, and even damage the education outcome as a whole.

I guess you confuse about value and value add...

Should I just have worked 20-40
per cent and homeschooled? Would have been far more relaxing for us as a household and seems like you think outcome would be the same or better.

If you believe you, as an education provider, can provide better value for money education outcome than the state school by reducing your working time. Maybe this is something you should think about.

You can appeal a decision, and I believe that often then involves exams. But it puts another hurdle in front of children from lower socioeconomic status families. The system clearly disadvantages the already disadvantaged. It's debatable whether that's worse in effect than the disadvantage that poorly supported children face in the 11+ exams in the UK. But an exam at least offers the appearance that parents can try to do something about it.

So it is the exam can happen when teacher recommendation is not desired?

It seems only small part of the England grammar county can have school recommendation override the single exam result?

In any case, selection by exam to steam at age 10 is bad.

I guess you have already given the answer.

Sure, if you want to fit the question to the answer you want. Why restrict it to Western systems? Singapore's too foreign? Why consider only countrywide systems? Chicago's population is as large as that of a quarter of the member states in the EU.

Again, Chicago selection is not solely based on exam, exam score is only forms a part. And many schools are use the score to allocate students to specific talent class (so it is mixed).

Sure, why not look at Singapore or even China, to see how their education system reform over time? At least better than the label of North Korea...

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/secondary-school-streaming-be-abolished-2024-replaced-subject-based-banding

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-58380792

If the dustmen's children show academic aptitude and hard work, they will be recommended as well as the doctors' children.

Germany had a strong industry though, and excellent vocational routes, so even the doctors' children might prefer to go to Realschule if they're more inclined towards industry, not classics.

German system is more complex and yes, it's a federal state so rules may vary. It is possible to switch routes later on (not always easy but doable, and relatively easy at Gesamtschule) and go to uni after Realschule (with additional steps to get Abitur).

Here is a chart (may differ slightly but gives an idea) https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berufliches_Gymnasium

"grammar adds no value is compared and benchmark against to the comprehensive school using the same funding, and even damage the education outcome as a whole."

Also

"students from more privilegedbackgrounds are more likely to attend grammar schools, which can exacerbate educational inequalities."

How can the privileged attending a damaging school exacerbate educational inequalities?

All your arguments are self-contradictory...

Grammars aren't any better then comps. In fact grammars are worse than comps, but we must abolish grammars because they entrench privilege and don't help the most disadvantaged. But they don't provide any advantage and the kids would be better at a comp, but kids attending grammars is unfair and damages comps, but the grammar kids have worse outcomes and that's bad for mobility because....

Round and around we go, but you won't just state the obvious - i.e. you're class warriors that are ideologically opposed to grammars because you view them as a posh club that entrenches privilege and you'd prefer the 'posh' kids to be dragged down to the level of the average failing comp.

How can the privileged attending a damaging school exacerbate educational inequalities?

Explain many times, last time, if you still don't get it, it is ok.

Research does suggest that perceived benefits for privileged students in grammar schools do not enhance their education outcomes, while such unequal selection process can indeed negatively impact underprivileged students in other schools, leading to broader negative consequences.

It is not a zero sum game.

“If you believe you, as an education provider, can provide better value for money education outcome than the state school by reducing your working time. Maybe this is something you should think about.”

@Overturnedmum- I don’t think that will be in the tax payer’s best interest. Far better to let us have our grammar, private, top set high achieving comps and crack on paying 40/45 per cent tax and bringing up our children to do the same. Neither we nor our kids can parent other people’s kids. Find a better solution.

Private schools do not use taxpayer money, especially after changes to VAT and business rates. To effectively use taxpayer money for state education, one of the better solutions is abolish the 11-plus exam. Additionally, reforming school catchment policies would ensure that parents and schools focus less on school entry selection at the primary level and more on the actual educational content that would benefit children in the long term.

More like some people have realised that putting VAT on private schools is going to lead to more and more demands to bring back grammars all over the country and panic is setting in.