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.

Bucks grammar catchment is unique in that the people who aim for it are Indian IT contract workers living mainly in Milton Keynes. Most tend to send their kids to primaries there (which is why most of them are good), tutor, then move to be in catchment which is why local secondaries in MK aren’t that good.

This idea that Bucks grammars don’t take MK students is so, so false. Most of their students only become catchment residents approx a year before the 11+.

I’m puzzled about what you mean? By definition, in a grammar area, there are no true comprehensives. That’s an obvious statement.

The number of grammars in comparison to the number of other schools, and their effective catchment, determines how far the area’s other schools are from being comprehensive- so for example in Gloucestershire, a single superselective in one town, drawing from a huge radius covering multiple counties, leaves the other schools within that town closer to representing the full range of abilities and backgrounds in their catchment areas (ie closer to being true comprehensives) than eg. the four grammar schools in the neighbouring city.

Whether some students are not long term grammar catchment residents is not relevant to this point. Or am I missing something?

Surely if many parents don't even bother with the 11+ (religious options are better, other non grammar schools are better) then schools are comprehensive?
I don't think all the A level students at our local comprehensives are those that took, but failed, the 11+. Lots of parents don't even bother with it. We have two small grammars (single sex) covering a wide area and two central, plus many village, comprehensives have excellent sixth forms.

Can fsm even be claimed at independents? Do they get pupil premium?

There isn’t a duty to provide FSM to DC attending independent schools, but the LA has the power to provide them under section 513 of the Education Act 1996. Individual schools may decide to give free meals to those on a low income, even when FSM aren’t provided by the state.

Where LAs fund independent placements and the child is eligible for pp, the LA receives the funding and can choose how much to pass on to the school.

https://phys.org/news/2024-09-dna-powerful-predictor-success.amp

“They found that up to 25% of differences in school grades between individuals can be attributed to genetic differences. This is a greater effect than a person's family socioeconomic background (10%) and the Ofsted rating of the school a child attends, which only accounts for 4% of an individual's educational success.”

Open Access
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10648-024-09928-4

Funding into AI to tailor education to each child will hopefully develop massively in the next 25 years. To maximise outcomes for all. However, the research is showing the importance of genetics. Rather than principally socio economics.

Well, I guess that means achievement has little to do with grammar school education. A student will do just as well in a comprehensive school, right? Not point to keep the 11 plus process

@Overturnedmum - no, it inferes the opposite. That the one size fits all education system goes contrary to the underlying genetic facts.

Well your quoted research does not seem to conclude anything like that, only relevant point I can see is "Ofsted rating of the school a child attends, which only accounts for 4% of an individual's educational success.”

It’s certainly not the idea that grouping some students, whose parents think they have genetic advantages, from age 11, will benefit their educational success

No, it is not based on “success”, it is based on NEED of children. Which is in their genes.

I mean if you want the comp to act as a meet market so that people with academic genes mix with those with less academic genes so that the children they may eventually produce are more likely to have a more balanced mix, then say that.
But if education should be based on a child’s actual needs, then those with less genetic propensity to learn should get far more attention and those with the highest should be in grammar schools learning at their pace.

But if education should be based on a child’s actual needs, then those with less genetic propensity to learn should get far more attention and those with the highest should be in grammar schools learning at their pace.

Your quoted research doesn’t suggest anything about naturally gifted kids needing special education or different learning patterns, nor does it imply that comprehensive schools fail to meet any such ‘needs.’

I might even argue that the ‘need’ to learn are genetic related, but has absolutely nothing to do with genetic ability for natural academic success.

My quoted research suggests very clearly that it’s down to genetics, not specific schooling. So the premise of the thread that grammars are unfair is incorrect and that kids should travel to far off catchments is also incorrect because the school makes less difference than the genes or the economic status of students.
Your premise was that pupil outcome is defined largely by socio economic status.

You and many others do not like this research and that is why the clear conclusions are not specifically stated. They are inferred.
If you actually want a more level playing field then children with lower genetic markers for academics need a lot more spending on them. You can’t just mix them up and hope for osmosis. It isn’t down to poverty, it’s down to genes.

Moreover, we live in a capitalist and classist society where those with most brains get the best jobs and the most money and then are more likely to mate with those like them. Which further exacerbates this genetic inequality. We have selective unis where students like each other meet and the cycle continues.

In Western democracies, we have a deep seated fear and discomfort with anything that may evoke Eugenics, due to the atrocities committed by Hitler and our collective trauma after WW2. However, that does not mean we should just ignore new research which goes against what we have believed in and wanted to believe in for a long time and that then translated into policies.

/

There is a fundamental mistake in your argument, which seems to be based on wishful thinking. You think that grammar schools are filled with genetically clever students, while other schools are not. However, the 11+ exam is a choice made by parents, not the children themselves. This does not suggest that non-grammar schools are full of “genetically inferior” students who need more educational attention.
You also try to make it comparable to people choice for jobs and university, which is way more natural ability relevant than 11+.

My premises for arguing that grammar schools and the 11+ exam are pointless are as follows:

It does not add value to educational achievement (as your quoted research clearly indicates).

It creates social division among children from the age of 11 based on family background rather than genetic ability. I find it truly disgusting that you would suggest such a division is a good idea (and related the equality movement to WW2 and Hitler) and the quoted research does not support your notion.

Research also shows that for disadvantaged families (again, this is about family background, not genetics), it is actually damaging to their students’ educational outcomes due to existence of grammar school and is an ineffective use of state resources.

No I didn’t say any of that and you are being deliberately obtuse which is hardly surprising given your other arguments on this thread.
You criticised the current 11 plus process. All I am pointing out is that there is current research indicating very clearly that if governments wanted to they could more accurately find the really children and from quite an early age as well.
But carry on with your one side fits all approach, it won’t carry on for much longer anyway.
Like Einstein said there are huge untapped areas of the brain. Once science identifies every child’s cognitive potential and AI can challenge their brains optimally none of your type of keeping everyone in their boxes is going to work anymore.

The whole point of this research is actually proving that some children will need a lot more to overcome their own relative cognitive disadvantages from the state. And why anyone would not want them to get more resources allocated so that they can also live their best life in this society and optimise their chances in employment and quality of life is unfair. Schools for challenged children with amazing resources and small classes is what we need rather than the one size fits all cheap option that the state mainly provides. The research very clearly indicates it does not equalise at all.

I All I am pointing out is that there is current research indicating very clearly that if governments wanted to they could more accurately find the really children and from quite an early age as well.

I can no longer believe in your comprehension skills. Where did you infer that from your quoted research

Schools for challenged children with amazing resources and small classes is what we need rather than the one size fits all cheap option that the state mainly provides

While I don’t necessarily disagree with this point, it doesn’t relate to the conclusion drawn from your quoted research. Additionally, it has no relevance to grammar schools or comprehensive schools.