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.

Well I wouldn't want my kids to go to any rough neck school. You get one chance in education during your childhood. I agree thought that the catchment area system is unfair. Good schools are often over subscribed so it is then that they decide on the catchment area. By the way, many labourites went to public schools!!

I think school catchments are really only the concern of city folk. If you live rurally, you're stuck with a single local school and the LEA won't fund travel to other schools. There probably isn't public transport anyway, so that's irrelevant.

Fingers crossed you don't have a failing comp as your local (only) school...

Teacher insult in this thread? Could you kindly provide an example? Something along the lines of, ‘Oh, my experience is different, so whatever you say must be untrue?!

@ThisOldThang never too late to learn a language! I was similarly hamstrung by rubbish teachers at a rubbish school, but have gone about rectifying the situation in adulthood

Catchments make sense logistically. What needs scrapping are faith schools. Children should not be discriminated against on religious grounds.

Araminta that was one of our reasons for
leaving London for kids upbringing. Remember the stress of work colleagues about their small children getting into the “right” school and being interviewed. Not for us.

State schools are not permitted to interview. Parents or dc. @lazzapazza I don’t agree with faith schools either. Selection by religion.

@TizerorFizz - they may not be permitted to interview but some can run music and sports assessments.
It’s all some sort of back door selection - whether fee paying, religious commitment, grammar, banding tests, rowing scholarships at 13 or even ludicrously strict homework and discipline policies. The more hoops, the more committed the parents are having bought in philosophically or via money/time. That keeps the bad parents at bay and so the schools succeed. Successful schools are a partnership with the parent group in all sectors.

So personally I find it very strange if someone approves of private or grammar school but disapproves of faith schools.

Let’s say if I could get funding tomorrow for a comp with compulsory Latin, Greek, MFL x 2 from Year 7 and a day that starts at 8am but doesn’t finish until 5 every day including 1.5 hours homework on site, I can guarantee that only a certain type of parent will sign up to that.

In a comprehensive school, with appropriate level of setting, a student who isn’t good at math and might have failed the 11-plus exam can still excel and be in the top set for Latin and Greek. It’s not difficult to understand at all.

The more hoops, the more committed the parents are having bought in philosophically or via money/time.

Agree, too many choices are a bad thing in this regard. Introduce some sort of lottery or randomness in allocation for early age will be able to remove this in a great extent. Especially for state sector.

But very few comprehensives set for more than English, Maths and maybe Sciences.

You need a huge intake to achieve that.

My child is at one of the biggest comprehensives in the UK and they do set for the majority of subjects, and offer a vast number of options including Latin, 3 MFL and BTECs,

My siblings DC in other comprehensives and a similar age, but in different parts of the UK are only set for English and Maths, and because they are much smaller intakes, the sets are still pretty much mixed ability.

When you have 400+ kids in a year there is a huge difference between top set maths and when you have 60 kids in a year group.

DD's school basically have a grammar stream within the school. Because the tutor groups are set based on banding tests (NVR), even those lessons that aren't officially set are actually set as the children in them have already been streamed on entry (tutor groups remain fixed for Years 7-11)

Oh and it's lottery entry - but you do have to have parents organised enough to attend the banding tests, or to apply for the sports and music places.

But very few comprehensives set for more than English, Maths and maybe Sciences.

But that doesn't mean only students with good English Maths or Science can choose and excel Classic of Greeks.

Because the tutor groups are set based on banding tests (NVR), even those lessons that aren't officially set are actually set as the children in them have already been streamed on entry (tutor groups remain fixed for Years 7-11)

I am personally aware of at least five comprehensive schools where tutor groups are not fixed and are updated annually based on each subject. I think the example you gave, for a set that is fixed for 5 years is rather unusual and certainly not the best practice in a large school environments.

and it's lottery entry - but you do have to have parents organised enough to attend the banding tests, or to apply for the sports and music places.

The purpose of banding tests in some comprehensive schools in England is to ensure a balanced intake of students across a range of academic abilities. This system is "fair banding,” aims to create a diverse student body by admitting equal numbers of students from different ability bands. This significantly reduces the need or incentive for parent driven preparation and the test can potentially be conducted within local authority primary schools.

You haven't understood the difference between a tutor group and a subject set.

How on earth are primary schools going to conduct multiple banding tests for masses of different secondary schools?

DD sat 4 different banding tests in Y6 - some were just NVR, some were NVR, VR, English and Maths. Every school had it's own system and they were not all in the same borough.

Of the 60 kids in her primary year, they went on to over 20 different secondaries.

PS. You don't need to tell me why schools use banding tests, or how they work. Believe me I would probably be on track for top grades in a GCSE on school application processes.

You haven't understood the difference between a tutor group and a subject set.

I may have misunderstood, as in some schools, a tutor group might refer to the class students are in for a specific subject, similar to a set. If by ‘tutor group’ you mean the traditional ‘class,’ my point still stands. There isn’t a strong rationale for assigning a class based on an entry test for all other subjects without sets. The example you have doesn’t seem like a good practice to me.

How on earth are primary schools going to conduct multiple banding tests for masses of different secondary schools?

DD sat 4 different banding tests in Y6 - some were just NVR, some were NVR, VR, English and Maths. Every school had it's own system and they were not all in the same borough.

That is the whole reason to consolidate this and apply the intake randomess more universally when the 11-plus exam is scrapped.

The comprehensive banding test, as it is called, aims to do fair banding for mixed ability, which does not require preparation or a bespoke format. Every school is not in competition for creaming off the best students. There is no need for a small variety of different formats, and indeed, for multiple boroughs, it can be shared by one set of results if required.

PS. You don't need to tell me why schools use banding tests, or how they work. Believe me I would probably be on track for top grades in a GCSE on school application processes.

I believe you probably familiar with this specific logic. And you should see there is little point to have multiple different round of banding test. However, it seems that some other parents in the thread, who apparently only know how the grammar application process works, don’t have a good understanding. Some might even claim that it is not much different from the grammar test in intention.

A tutor group is the child’s form with one teacher who takes the statutory register and who attends to the kids’ admin and pastoral needs. Often, children are taught in their tutor groups, though it doesn’t tend to be for all subjects and usually stops in year 10. The majority of schools keep the same tutor groups until year 11.

The majority of schools keep the same tutor groups until year 11.

There are two comprehensive schools I am familiar with do change tutor groups in Year 9 (not based on ability but more for the purpose of improve interaction at the same point of group teacher change). The size of the tutor group does not have to be the same as the class size. Again, fixing tutor groups based on entrance exam rankings does not seem to be the best practice to me.

@Overturnedmum - you are again putting ideology over the needs of a child.

Of course it is in the best interests of a child to stay in a tutor group in an otherwise huge school! It’s how you combine the small and familiar with the advantages a huge school can otherwise bring. It’s probably another reason the school described is so popular.

Banding tests and formats can never be fair because children have innate abilities.

My current year 5 is incredibly strong at English (think top 0.5 per cent), Music, Verbal Reasoning but not naturally good at non verbal. Their brain thinks in words and they overthink the non verbal. Other kids will be the opposite. The fact there are different types of banding may actually help children individually!

Largely this.

In my DC's school (former school now as the last one has sat A levels), they are called mentor groups. They're smaller than normal subject classes and are used for admin - taking the register (although that is also done at the start of each lesson), passing on messages, etc. and for pastoral purposes. Setting for a mentor group would be pointless.

In Y7, students are set for English and Maths. Those sets are used for other subjects initially (so the English set will dictate the humanities sets, the maths set dictates the science sets), and then the sets are refined through the subsequent terms/years. It's a large school so students in a year group are split into 3 bands which are not based on ability, and then set into 4 sets within those bands (so there are 3 top sets, etc.). It seems to work well and the school gets good results at GCSE and A Level.

Not necessarily, and it’s not just comprehensive schools. I know of a few grammar schools and private schools, which are very popular among some parents, that also change their tutor groups in Year 9. The best interest is to have a structure that best supports the development of the children, and social interaction is an important part of this. You want the child to have broader relationships in the school as they grow. And little point to have a tutor group (some school called mentor group, form class etc) based on ability...

Where are these comprehensives with Latin and Greek on the timetable? 😂

Exactly my point earlier to respond to up thread mentioning only grammar school students entitled to have these classes...

In a comprehensive school, with appropriate level of setting, a student who isn’t good at math and might have failed the 11-plus exam can still excel and be in the top set for Latin and Greek. It’s not difficult to understand at all.

None of the schools I taught in kept the same tutor groups. DCs’ school does not keep the same tutor groups either (exception: they are in the same tutor group in Y10-11).

Though…my DCs are in grammar, and their options are French, German, and Spanish.