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.

DD's comp is exactly this.

435 pupils per year. Tutor groups are set based on the banding tests taken pre-entry.

Y7/Y8 they are set for English and Maths and other subjects in tutor group.

Three year GCSE pathway, so options picked in Y8 and then all subjects bar things like PE and Infotech (tutor group) are set.

Iirc, there are over 20 sets for core subjects, and 3 or more for many of the options - geog, hist, MFL, Music etc

This means the correct set can be very carefully tweaked and it's easy to move up or down as well as getting a good fit with teachers.

Huge numbers mean lots of options, lots of extra curricular and lots of flexibility depending on the individual students characteristics.

No catchment and lottery entry plus aptitude tests (sport and music for entry, then maths and art once in the school).

Looking at the kids I know who are at BRIT, I don't know any who haven't had years and years of 'tutoring'. It's just not academic tutoring.

It's somewhere we considered at one point for DD. If we had gone for it, in terms of prep you would be talking 9 years of dance classes, all-day Sunday MT training, 1-2-1 lessons across 3 instruments since she was 7, 4 years of weekly drama training and several years of professional work experience. And DD trains far less intensively than most of the kids I know who applied.

Tutoring for 11plus would have been massively less pressure, massively cheaper and taken up far less time.

I chuckled when I read that you can't tutor for PA schools. The costs over years of training dwarf any 11+ prep 😂

Perhaps you’re correct; they require extensive training (I wouldn’t call it extensive tutoring), but the fact that the assessment process occurs at ages 14+ and 16+, with an emphasis on potential and creativity matters way more.

I was pretty sure I am a good tennis player at 10 because I have access to a local tennis club from age 6, and I trained a lot and joined the squad - it took me not long to realise a few kids who only started tennis at 11, will be better than me in a few months time..

Tutoring for 11plus would have been massively less pressure, massively cheaper and taken up far less time

How about setting the entry test at 15+ or 16+? It could be much simpler, based solely on GCSE grades (or whatever the national standard exam subjects will be) . Students could study in comprehensive schools who can afford to receive after-hours tutoring, according to the family’s preference. I’m sure this would significantly reduce the pressure too.

While tutoring can be effective for any subject, its benefits tend to decrease as children get older. This is why intensive tutoring is often focused on the 11+ exams and is usually available only to those who can afford it and will see the advantageous effect.

Sorry but this is nonsense.

Where do you differentiate between tutoring and teaching?

DD has tutors in very specific areas that are not entirely related to GCSEs and the older she gets and the more expertise she has, the better value the tutoring is, and the more she gets out of it.

If I could just buy a set of Bond books for PA...

Sorry are you using AI now?

LOL I can feel your pain 🤣

So, we’re going to determine which secondary school a child attends based on who can practice more from a set of Bond books at age 10? Sounds absurd.

I'm using uber music.

Sure, you can do that outside the school whatever you want.

BTW I just realised that the BRIT school is officially under independent school status.

A few Bond books solve the education system problem? Why not just have everyone do Bond books in primary school and skip the 11+ exam altogether?

I can totally sense your PTSD from prepping for the 11+ exam.

I do wish you would spend a bit more time on your sentence constructions and vocabulary selections. The majority of your comments have to be read multiple times to be comprehensible.

It's rather a good thing that Bond books are available to allow children to familiarise themselves with the kinds of questions that are in 11+ exams. A lot of children don't actually need much practice.

There is also nothing wrong with children experiencing a bit of pressure and also developing some resilience.

It's rather a good thing that Bond books are available to allow children to familiarise themselves with the kinds of questions that are in 11+ exams. A lot of children don't actually need much practice.

There is also nothing wrong with children experiencing a bit of pressure and also developing some resilience.

You can do that regularly in comprehensive schools, for the more relevant subjects, and use it for sets

@OhCrumbsWhereNow

What is your thoughts on this?

Tutoring for 11plus would have been massively less pressure, massively cheaper and taken up far less time

How about have entry test at 15+ or 16+? It could be much simpler, based solely on GCSE grades (or whatever the national standard exam subjects will be) .

Students study in comprehensive schools during the day. For those who can afford, can receive after-hours tutoring, according to the family’s preference. For those who can't, give them some bond book or CGP for practicing.

I’m sure this would significantly reduce the pressure and save more time for parents, and more efficient too.

At 15/16 you are applying for 6th form, the vast majority of which are selective with your GCSE grades. This is already the norm in England.

The whole point of grammar schools is to offer a specialised form of education to those children who have the the ability and inclination to benefit. And that should happen at a younger age so that you can learn at the level and speed suited to your ability within a cohort of other children who are able to do the same.

Those who are late developers have the opportunity to join at 16+

For some reason there seems to be acceptance of:

Promising young footballers being coached early in academies.
Promising young dancers going to vocational schools like White Lodge.
Promising young musicians going to places like Purcell and Chets where they can have specialist tuition and focus early.

But the idea of promising young people who excel at academics having special schools for their needs is seen as a negative.

Some of the best comprehensives probably can offer a similar education. But, often on here you read about children who are unable to move set because someone else would have to move down for them to move up. Or classes so disrupted that nobody can learn. Or schools that can't offer a particular subject. Or schools that only offer combined sciences.

Many studies show that children do not benefit more from grammar school education compared to comprehensive schools.

In comprehensive schools, via sets students can learn at a level and speed suited to their abilities within a cohort of peers who can achieve similarly. This allows for more dynamic adjustments that cater to a wider variety of abilities on a subject-by-subject and regular basis.

Given this evidence, it seems like a no-brainer to me.

That may be the case if you use certain data across multiple years and at cohort level.

In terms of the individual I just don't believe it - you would need all those students at grammar schools to have access to a great comprehensive that sets in every subject and has enough grammar level pupils to have top sets that rival the top sets in a grammar school (yep, they set there too).

Given I wasn't prepared to send DD to any of our local options as they didn't cater for her specialism and to be frank, they were pretty mediocre (or Require Improvement), had I thought she was suitable for grammar I'd have been looking at a house move.

promising young people who excel at academics having special schools for their needs is seen as a negative.

What do you consider ‘promising academics’? And how do you identify them at what age?

The specialized schools you mentioned don’t overlap much with mainstream education. However, the primary function of mainstream education at the secondary stage is academic studies, and students study the same subjects in comprehensive schools as they do in grammar schools. That’s a significant difference compared to specializing in music, football, and other areas.

At the sixth-form level, there are schools specifically for students with demonstrated aptitudes in maths and STEM subjects. These schools often take many students from comprehensive schools, showing that they can perform as well or even better than students from grammar schools. This demonstrates that for mainstream academic studies, specialist treatment as a school isn’t necessary.

Do you actually know much about the way places like WhiteLodge, or Purcell, Chets, Wells etc function in terms of schooling? Doesn't sound much like it here. They all massively overlap with mainstream education.

I didn't say "promising academics". I said promising young people who excel at academics. How do you identify them? Funnily enough the 11+ and NVR/VR tests are a pretty good indicator. That's why selective schools use them.

Grammars and comprehensives often don't offer the same subjects. Not all comprehensives offer Latin, Ancient Greek, 3 sciences, music as standard.

It's great that there are specialist schools at 6th form and also great that there is a wide choice of schools - including many specialist ones - at 11 too. Isn't choice a wonderful thing.

Do you actually know much about the way places like WhiteLodge, or Purcell, Chets, Wells etc function in terms of schooling? Doesn't sound much like it here. They all massively overlap with mainstream education.

While I acknowledge that they do offer academic programs, their pathways often diverge from those of comprehensive and grammar schools.

As I mentioned earlier, these are official private schools, mostly boarding, with some students funded by the state and charitable organizations. I would classify them more as private schools with bursary provisions. Ideally, I believe such funding should be means-tested

Funnily enough the 11+ and NVR/VR tests are a pretty good indicator. That's why selective schools use them.

Maybe certain level of potential, but often highlight more about a child’s family background, especially those who can invest time and money to give their children an edge. The family background is one of the most significant factor of one's ultimate education outcome anyway. But that does not equal to the wider promising young people who would excel in academic. 10 year old is far to young to identify as such.

Not all comprehensives offer Latin, Ancient Greek, 3 sciences, music as standard.

This is another good reason to convert these grammar schools into comprehensive schools, so broader students can access these opportunities. At least not using NVR to decide with who should learn music or Ancient Greek?

It's great that there are specialist schools at 6th form and also great that there is a wide choice of schools - including many specialist ones - at 11 too. Isn't choice a wonderful thing.

However, too many choices for using state resources might not be a good thing. It can result in inequality and inefficiency, so a right balance is needed.

Isn’t democracy a good thing? Maybe we should ask the 11-year-olds to vote too?

Grammars do not all offer Ancient Greek!! What a load of rubbish. They might offer more MFLs. My old grammar with “Latin” in its title, doesn’t offer the subject. The curriculum on offer isn’t very different in terms of subjects at a grammar. I think the grammars tend to stick to the more traditional academic ones and the secondaries have more breadth. Sometimes the enrichment opportunities are very different.

You really should stop now. Your arrogance, considering how utterly ignorant of education you are, is quite astounding.