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.

Is Mandarin not considered a MFL?

No. You can do it as an additional language, yes, and it is actively spoken in China, but when looking at statutory requirements of MFL provision, Mandarin doesn’t meet the National Curriculum MFL requirements.

Agree.

So even within comprehensives, there is no one system.

I know schools which:

A) Split the year into two sides - one higher and one lower and set within each side. This means non-core subjects are effectively set as well as core.

B) Split into 3 mixed ability groups and then set.

C) Only set for English and Maths.

As a parent, I wanted a school that streamed and set as much as possible - a grammar stream within a comprehensive setting was what I was looking for. Other parents might prefer much more mixed ability classes.

This is then a problem if children are allocated by lottery or only have the option of nearest school. Parents want to choose the right school for their child. What suits me and my child, may not suit my neighbour.

There are certain advantages to having the same teacher follow students for several years. However, there are also benefits to changing teachers when moving from junior to senior years (Years 7-8 to Years 9-10). The two schools I am most familiar with have chosen the latter approach. My main original argument is that it is probably not good practice to group students based on their exam abilities at entrance.

Scotland has the highest percentage of privately educated students in the UK. I wonder why...

Parents want to choose the right school for their child. What suits me and my child, may not suit my neighbour.

By right school, do you mean the school’s offerings, funding arrangement or the characteristics and demographics of the intake children of the school?

You probably meant Edinburgh, which is a metropolitan area...

Why does it matter? Some schools are better suited to some families, and others are better suited to other families, and that’s okay. A parent shouldn’t have to justify to another parent WHY their secondary school is a good match for their child.

Pupils with SEN who struggle with English as per the poster you originally replied to can have a reader, reading pen or computer reader for maths and English Literature if they need. They can also have a reader for some of GCSE English Language or a computer reader or reading pen for it all. Although difficulties in English can go beyond reading. Someone may be fine with reading but struggle with other areas.

It isn’t uncommon for those with more complex SEN to have spiky profiles, even if supported very well. DS1 has a spiky profile, is supported very well via a comprehensive EOTAS package, is academically very able in some subject including maths but struggles with English because of the content and difficulties with imagination/inference/feelings/emotions/intentions, etc. It is nothing to do with him being failed.

Those with English as an additional language sitting exams in 24/25 can also be eligible for a reader or computer reader.

I wanted a school that had superb music facilities, was more laid-back rather than super strict, that set for as many subjects as possible and had great SEN provision.

If I was looking for a school for my nephew, I'd be looking for one with superb sports facilities, a lot of structure and rules, great STEM and MFL provision and no need for SEN provision.

For any school I would want to see excellent academics and high numbers getting 5+ in English/Maths at GCSE and a decent cohort getting all 8/9 each year.

I looked at 27 schools to choose for DD.

I believe the last point is important because if parents can gain advantages, it can affect the overall effectiveness of educational outcome, funded by the state, broadly. This includes factors like the 11-plus exam, catchment areas, and faith schools, which are central to this discussion

You are completely wrong @Overturnedmum - if you give people choice and agency, they feel empowered and outcomes are far better. This is precisely why London outperforms every else, even for the most deprived students.
Telling people what to do and how to think and underestimating them hurts the country.

I looked at 27 schools to choose for DD.

You exemplify a parent who has the time and resources to relocate for better educational opportunities. I don’t think you would be disadvantaged by a lottery system with catchment. However, many other parents, who lack the luxury to consider 27 schools or take a GCSE for school admission, would benefit from some form of randomness to improve equality in state school access.

Haven't RTFT sorry.

I agree with you OP that the most common way to pay for school, which isn't private school fees but rather affording a house near a good one, increases inequality.

I can see though the point of other posters regarding problems such as with transport if catchments were scrapped.

So a better solution would be more social housing - across the country and in every area. That ensures genuinely mixed communities and better equality of access to schools.

Personally, I think you’re being very goady on this thread. I get the impression that you’d like nothing more than to get someone to answer your question with, “Because I don’t want my precious little Rafferty to be in a school with poor people,”—so that you can lay into them. This is the vibe that is coming across.

you give people choice and agency, they feel empowered and outcomes are far better. This is precisely why London outperforms every else, even for the most deprived students.

I’m not sure about the relationship, but I do know that, on average, state education funding in London is higher, and families have a higher disposable income.

Economic advantage will never be eradicated. I can't afford a Porsche but that doesn't mean that everyone should be driving a battered run around just because I can't afford the luxury car.
Houses, similar. It's not a race to the bottom and society is never going to be fair.

Russia tried to eradicate economic advantage in 1917. They were very successful at it.

How about Scandinavian countries?

answer your question with, “Because I don’t want my precious little Rafferty to be in a school with poor people,”—so that you can lay into them

I would need someone to state out loud before I can lay into?

have a look at my other thread, interesting discussion about Scandi

Part II - To ask what you'll be doing to avoid the Labour tax - Scandi model | Mumsnet

General consensus - we are different

“Personally, I think you’re being very goady on this thread. I get the impression that you’d like nothing more than to get someone to answer your question with, “Because I don’t want my precious little Rafferty to be in a school with poor people,”—so that you can lay into them. This is the vibe that is coming across.”

In a nutshell. And deliberately missing the point that most of us really don’t care how much money other parents have and are extremely happy with our kids being in schools with kids from council houses who have a parent or parents who value education and want to better themselves through education. But are not happy with a tiny minority who show up and swear (or vaping/drinking or smoking in front of children), show up late every day thinking they are special, don’t bother doing homework/reading, disrespect public order, disrespect teachers, are entitled and rude etc. I am not sure what having money has to do with it. It is about courtesy, pride (in yourself and your work) and respect (for yourselves and others)- the values my DC were taught by their primary school (and at home) and then on it goes at grammar and in the vast majority of decent schools be they grammars, faith school, comprehensives or private schools.

Thanks will look into that, and I'm pretty sure Labour government will say they are closer to Scandi than Soviet Union or North Korean , and I will probably agree with that too.

But are not happy with a tiny minority who show up and swear (or vaping/drinking or smoking in front of children), show up late every day thinking they are special, don’t bother doing homework/reading, disrespect public order, disrespect teachers, are entitled and rude etc. I am not sure what having money has to do with it.

I agree on this. Just doesn't think grammar school and 11 plus is the right solution for solving this problem.

As I have said upthread, in my professional experience, children with more engaged parents (like @OhCrumbsWhereNow ) have significantly better outcomes than those with unengaged parents.

Why should @OhCrumbsWhereNow ’s child be put into a lottery, simply because they have an engaged parent? The parent has found a school to match the child’s needs, and that can only be a good thing. @OhCrumbsWhereNow ’s child should not be penalised because there are other children whose parents can’t be bothered to research schools.

The main issue is parental engagement: reading, healthy home environments, actively engaging with homework, and engaging with teachers. Unfortunately not every home in the UK has a parent like that. THAT is what needs to change.