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.

You may be right. But as it stands grammars do not sift the brightest brains. They play to those who are certainly bright, but who have been taught and guided through those pesky entrance exams. I know plenty of young people who were schooled in the Teddington area in the noughties who both passed the test, or weren't tutored at all (and didn't make the supposed grade). They all ended up with the same results and went to the same universities. What was the point of that? Except to add stress and division? If we're to have grammars this wrinkle needs ironing out

@Overturnedmum - there is no point me linking to Open Access research is there, because you would dismiss it in any event and the rest, well you will have to pay for it. Plus some of it is entirely political - I remember an Israeli academic writing a paper on parental conflicts (parents of gifted children) with teachers in a mixed ability environment being poo-pooed by the status quo.

The problem with collectivist sorts is that they cannot live and let live.

They cannot be happy doing what they want with their children and let you do what your want with your children. They can only be satisfied, if they can dictate what everyone else does.

Well thank fuck for the Magna Carta and liberalism which will always ultimately prevail in this country (despite all its shortcomings). Transibit

I disagree, we don't need any more cars on the road, and anyway, not everyone CAN get to schools further away.

because you would dismiss it in any event and the rest

Have you tried? I tried but yes you absolutely 100% completely dismiss all of them.

Mandarin doesn’t meet the National Curriculum MFL requirements

Would you clarify what you mean by this and point me to a reference?
This document states:

A ‘Modern Foreign Language’ is defined in Condition GCSE (Modern Foreign Languages) 7.1.

....

Condition GCSE (Modern Foreign Languages) 7: Interpretation and definitions
GCSE (Modern Foreign Languages) 7.1
In these Conditions the following words shall have the meaning given to them below (and cognate expressions should be construed accordingly) –
Modern Foreign Language
A language, apart from English –
(a) which is in everyday spoken use, and
(b) with respect to which an awarding organisation is not required to comply with the GCSE (9 to 1) Subject Level Conditions and Requirements for –
(i) Ancient Languages , or
(ii) French, German and Spanish

----

The implication is that, if anything, French, German and Spanish are not MFL under this technical definition, having their own separate requirements. I see no mention about MFL being limited to those spoken in European countries. And, as Italian is not one of the three European languages explicitly listed, do you assert that Italian also does not meet the National Curriculum MFL requirements?

Where did I say that French, German, and Spanish were the only MFL options?

Exactly this.

You keep your grammar schools where you already have them if you want, but we need to acknowledge that they are not genuinely filled with the very brightest kids. They are filled with reasonably intelligent kids whose parents are either motivated or reasonably wealthy, or both. They no longer fulfil their original purpose of providing a good education for the brightest pupils regardless of social background or parental support and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Do you still assert that Chinese is not considered a MFL for National Curriculum purposes and that MFL languages must be languages which are currently spoken in European countries?

I would agree with that to some extent.

Surely the answer would be more grammar schools and 11+ tuition within schools?

In other countries people go to their local school and it works just fine.

Brighton tried to do a lottery system instead of catchments and it went horribly wrong. And that was a supposed "Green" council but they didn't mind if all the kids had to travel miles to school by car rather than walking down the road.

A lot of schools in less affluent areas are very good.

An affluent intake with engaged parents makes things easier but a good school gets the best out of the kids whatever their background.

As Im in a grammar county, I would say the vast majority of the all round brightest dc are in the grammars. There are other dc whose intelligence is more niche who are in the secondaries and do well later. However if you look at uni destinations. A level results and similar markers, the majority of secomdary dc aren’t equivalent to the majority in the grammars. The bottom 1/5 of the grammars has some cross over with the top 20% in the secondaries. This can be tutoring get to the grammars (although lots of secondary dc have been tutored too!) and personal machine post 26 snd 18. The assertion that the secondaries have lots of very bright dc in them is not borne out by results or uni destination or subjects studied either. Studying medicine is unusual from a secondary school for example.

Super selective areas are different,

Ok. Well, in the Tiffin area of SW London I know of people (they are all now in their twenties) who 'failed' the exam because they weren't tutored, and who ended up with Firsts from Oxford, Cambridge and Bristol even though they went to Teddington School or other comps. I appreciate it's not a full grammar area by any means. But thank goodness these students didn't let labels or assumptions get in their way.

@faffadoodledo - SW London is not a good comparison. It is an expensive area with very expensive catchment and known to have some of the best comps in the country, full of rich and supportive parents. Grey Court, Orleans Park etc, hmm, very exclusive and tiny catchments. FSM rate at Orleans Park is 7.1 per cent.

The assertion that the secondaries have lots of very bright dc in them is not borne out by results or uni destination or subjects studied either. Studying medicine is unusual from a secondary school for example.

Those asserting that secondaries have plenty of bright pupils in them are speaking about areas of the country where grammar schools don't exist. The brightest pupils in those comprehensive schools absolutely are on a par with the pupils at grammar schools elsewhere in the country.

FSM rate at Orleans Park is 7.1 per cent.

This is the average FSM level in SW London, 2x higher than as the FSM as in London.

This is rubbish. There are grammar schools in my area. My child didn't want to attend one just like his friends. He went to the local comp where he got mostly 9s and some 7s and 8s. His friends got similar results as did many in his school. His comp has many bright intelligent students getting grades higher than grammar students.

I think you've misunderstood what I was saying.

@Overturnedmum - the vast majority of the country would be more than happy to live in Richmond and have the option of attending a school like Grey Court or Orleans Park. The whole point is that most people do not get that choice, it is far too expensive. So they go for other options like faith, grammar, private etc. - and so pointing to those schools, well what is the point? They are quiet and selective schoools, just not in your narrow definition of selection. I mean come on, living in Richmond full stop is really quite selective.

They are quiet and selective schoools, just not in your narrow definition of selection

I don't disagree location selection is another issue. However it seems that you keep ignoring the fact that grammar schools FSM% is 5-6x times lower than national average. Even, as you mention, one of the expensive area in London, the comprehensive take in 2x more students from disadvantaged background student than grammar schools....

The local (selective) private school had more kids on fsm than our local ‘state’ grammar - 20 vs 2 kids - prior to them removing burseries.

@Laserwho There are not comps in a full grammar system, eg Bucks. How can there be? 20-40% are going to the grammars. Yes a few dc do well in the secondaries and there’s an overlap. However Oxbridge ? Just no. Where there’s just one grammar taking from a huge geographical area, of course some comps all around will be very strong. It’s not countrywide though. There are big variations been north, midlands and SE/London.

You keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better

Where do you get information about the number of students eligible for FSM at private schools?