bbc news tonight - parents lying to get into schools made me wonder...

[jollygumbear]

if you rent your house out and then rent yourself in catchment and live there for a year does that make the application for the school illegal?

i won't say "wrong" as that's another thread as its all about personal opinion!

thanks

SM, the golden 6% {sic}...

Yes, of course some of them would struggle if they suddenly were moved to the state sector. For some of them, their parents have sacrificed for them to be educated privately because that is right for them. There are loads of pupils in the private sector that are ther specifically because they were not able to hack it in the state sector. They have been there and done that, got the tee-shirt, and don't particularly want to return.

In some areas, all the good state schools are mahoosive student factories. For some kids this just doesn't work, and the only reasonable option for the parents is to find a nice, small school where they can flourish.

Tbh if my dd was not bright I could see that she may need a private education and I would be more willing to let dp have his own way. Still very unlikely but a slight shift in probability. Even in our state school which is a good one I don't think well behaved students in lower ability sets get as good an education as they may in an independant school.

Yes, obviously I am throwing around sweeping statements!! I am afraid Xenia makes me do that.

I absolutely agree that people should make their own decisions as to where their children are schooled. If you want to pay, that's fine, and people pay for all kinds of reasons and make all kinds of sacrifices to do so (not everyone is rolling in it). I understand all that BUT what about the children who are of equal intelligence who DON'T have that advantage? Why SHOULD they lose out on top university places??? Just because their parents can't pay?

I can't really see that any reasonable person cannot see that it is dreadful in this day and age for the education system in this country to be so devisive. Even Michael Gove is saying it now (re a disproportionate about of privately educated children getting top university places).

There are some excellent state schools in this country but not enough and not enough equally placed throughout the country. And there are some very clever children in private schools too. But at the moment the different outcomes for MEDIOCRE/AVERAGE children in the private sector and the state sector leaves a lot to be desired.

*amount not about obviously

I agree if you are mediocre to lower abilility state schools generally need to do more.

SM, put yourself in the shoes of the parent who does pay, usually sacrificially?

Don't you think it is the job of a parent to make life better for their offspring? And if they work hard to do so, you think their children should be penalised for working hard and achieving.

Until universities move aways from A-level grades as their entrance requirements, that is the system we have and it is unfair on students who do achieve within the system to have their achievements undervalued - and why? because they worked hard and had dedicated teachers? On what basis are you discounting their achievements?

I don't really see how any child can fail to fully take advantage of academic A-levels. Class sizes are smaller, they are among other students who have self selected that course. They should just get on with their studies and stop looking at the chips on their shoulders.

I wasn't commenting on anyone's particular post. I was just saying life is unfair.

"I understand all that BUT what about the children who are of equal intelligence who DON'T have that advantage? Why SHOULD they lose out on top university places??? Just because their parents can't pay?"

That's fairly naive. It's pretty unfair that I'm supposedly prettier than my sister but that doesn't mean we throw acid in my face. Children in homes where they don't get much attention are losing out by the time they are 5 years old not 18 even which is why the very poor and neglected actually do better in day nurseries than home even.

Either you ensure state comps are all the same (and bus children around so those from homes where they are abused and there are no books and those with ADD and other things are all mixed with children who are from middle class homes) and abolish grammars and faith schools or you accept the state system will always be unfair and just try to do what you can to improve the bad comprehensives.

The private school issue is another matter again. It's too big a topic to summarise in one post but as said above not all chidlren will be like my daughter at say North London Collegiate. Plenty of children do well in prviate schools who aren't very bright and they benefit from their individual talents coming out or just being forced to work or being in small groups in a way they may not get in the state system. I don't think that's any more wrong than allowing a parent to help a 7 year old learn their times tables at home when other parents may not bother.

please don't use Brighton as an example of a town/city where the lottery has worked....
that only works if you have a choice, the are in which our house falls has the "choice" of one secondry school........and yse it is a bad one.
thank goodness ds got though befor this and dd has sn.

I don't think it's naive. I thinking it's stating the truth (I'm sure you would agree Michael Gove is not 'naive')

I do think the analogy re. one sister being prettier than the other is rather childish and simplistic, however.

Michael Gove is just saying that private schools work! Is he saying the students don't deserve their university places?

You can't be penalised for playing the system. If you achieve As and Bs in your A-levels (and only you are in the exam room, not your teacher), then why shouldn't you get a good university place?

Besides, there are plenty of university places to go round. Even a hard done by student in state schools will find a place.

I realise that private schools work!!!

What I mean is that EVERY child should have the opportunity to receive a 'good' education, not only those children whose parents can afford to either pay, or buy a house in a catchment area for a decent school.

The achievement of As at A levels is surely dependent on the quality of teaching and the quality of school. I am merely pointing out that it is highly likely that an 'average' child at a private school is much more likely to get better grades than one at a crap school. Surely most people agree with that or they wouldn't be paying the money for a private education would they???

I keep hearing that state school teachers are fantastic - well trained, well qualified, well motivated - compared to unqualified private school teachers. Why aren't they squeezing As out of their sixth formers?

Well they do in many schools, but not as many as in private schools. I have no idea if state school teachers are better qualified, trained etc than their private counterparts.

However, in the schools which are full of 'undesirables' (the sort of children that people move house, or pay fees, to avoid) I imagine it's nigh on impossible.

Not everyone is capable of getting A levels. Not everyone is capable of going to university. Not everyone is 'bright' enough.

I am talking about 'average' children who do benefit massively from a private education.
It's a shame 'average' children in an 'average' comprehensive do not come out with the same examination results and therefore the same opportunity to apply for the very best universities. Surely that is why, going back to the very beginning of this thread, people lie to get their children into the 'best' schools. Or pay.

And most of the very good private schools you cannot get in for love nor money actually. The school chooses you, not the other way round, huge numbers apply per place at schools like North London Collegiate and most who can afford to pay and want to get in just don't get in (just like the state grammars).

Private schools are not a choice in that sense although if you have a not so clever child there is a usually a private school which will cater to them although even tehre you need to be careful., Not all private schools are any good.

Xenai is right in that in the top independents it is not simply a matter of writing a cheques and 'buying' results. I was at a school open day yesterday - top achieving independent - and it is inundated with parent sof lively and bright children, and it it will not e teh richest that get the coveted few places, but the those sparky, bright lively, clever children tha thte school picks! Doubtless many of those parents there yeaterday would lie, cheat, bribe, move house, all those other things the sate school parent sare allegedly doing for the best comps - BUT - they can't it doesn't work like that! Only in the state sector The paretns weren't incidentally decked out in Prada - i recogniosed another mum wearing the same matalan jacket as mine

True and I like it that they won't even have a picture or know the name of the child when they mark the paper.

I know a few people who sent their girls to schools for much less clever thick posh girls, boarding schools and one the daughter is a nurse not a consultant doctor - it's purely because he made the wrong school choice for her, sent her somewhere where girls mark time before they marry and nurse rather than become doctors. And in the case of those types of schools you pay double what you pay for a good day school ... and to make matters worse she married someone working class who then left her with a child. So the going to that school to meet the right sort of man didn't really work either.

I know people who have done this and although not in the spirit of the law its totally legal, as its your permanent address, need to properly change your address and stay there until the day your child starts at the school.

My DCs school is a very oversubscribed faith school. Its not possible to fake "faith" as they have very detailed procedures for checking up on how observant you are but admissions was done on distance from school and last year only 6 places - 3 went to people renting houses on the same road as the school! The other 3 went to people living almost as close.

Siblings get places regardless. There are a few families living further away - often getting places for older children when places come up and then the younger siblings get in. The school would not want to stop this as its important for them financially to try and fill these older places and it would put anyone off taking them if it meant siblings didn't get in.

Anyway school has got annoyed by the families renting outside the school and so has has introduced a lottery system. 60% of places to area A - which is basically those that live within 15 mins walk of school, and 40% of places to those living in area B which is 3km from school (excluding those in area A).

It is possible to fake faith though, isn't it? You just have to turn up every week, mumble through the hymns and put your collection in the plate. Unless they've reintroduced the auto de fe in NW London.

Does the lottery system apply to the faith schools too, or have they managed to wriggle their way out of it?

Sorry - misread your post. So it's the school itself that has introduced the lottery?

Does the lottery apply to those who meet the faith criteria or to any applicants?

To go back a rather a lot of posts...

The system of "choice" is a farce. It wastes huge amounts of everybody's time, whilst letting the middle-classes avoid confronting the social reasons (immigration, family breakdown, loss of social taboos that civilise behaviour) that give rise to so-called "bad-schools".

Everyone in the state sector should go to their local school, unless there is spare room at another school out of area. If it leads to the white middle-classes clearing out of London to the Home Counties (like the working class before them) then so be it.

Church schools funded by the state should have exactly the same admission criteria as "community" schools. RC schools are not especially sectarian (in England and Wales at least), but they do seem to be populated by the offspring of nominal left-footers who see themselves as ethnically a bit different. CofE secondary schools (and increasing primaries) are simply a dodge for filtering out the more undesirable elements.

If you want a specifically Christian school, do it privately, like this:

www.cfschool.org.uk/finance_fees.shtml

Ultimately though, I suspect where they are schooled makes little difference to the life outcome of one's children (or even their exam results). So this vast effort is to ensure that the "DC's" have a "happier" time at school. Which more than makes up for the house moves, entrance exams, stress over getting choices, tutoring, being split up from primary-school friends and goodness knows what else goes into the process.

Or educate them privately from day one and pick a career as a woman where you have your choice, power, all because you earn a lot of money. Make sure girls don't go into hair dresing and nursing and teaching and it's only the boys who want to lead the nation and run companies. Girls can do that too and that then enables them to pay school fees (but only if they had a good enough education in the first place).

Probably after good genes and good mental health and being loved (all of which sadly many chidlren do not get), your school and in particular your peer group, has the biggest influence on you. In a sense I pay to buy a clever hardworking peer group.

And go private from age 4 or 5. I'm sure my girls got into Habs and NLCS slightly more easily at 4 or 5 than they might have done at 11 when you get that massive influx from the state sector.

GrumpyYoungFogey - you say everyone should go to their local state school with faith schools effectively becoming community schools through the same admisssion process as other state schools. How would you ensure your "should" - presumably it would involve an attempt to abolish private schools or reduce their intake to some very small number.

Xenia are you saying that you don't want any female teachers?

If my dd wants to teach or lead the country I would be equally happy.

Xenia - surely your DCs would have no problem competing against people from the state sector for places at 11 if the state sector is as bad as you make out. Your arguments don't make sense.