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

Interesting, Zeph, that you say a school could retain its Catholic ethos without pref admission for Catholics. I had just assumed that would be hard, but perhaps I'm wrong: your example suggests so.

Swedes, re DS2, our LA has made a ginormous pig's ear over changed criteria for admissions to the school that DS1 is at. It has a fabulous new building and is likely to be more than usually oversubscribed. Its altered location means that we would certainly not get a place but for the sibling rule. With the sibling rule we should be ok, but I don't feel entirely certain about that so my second and thirsd choices feel genuinely important.

happywomble, hardly anyone is bashing church schools per se (with possible the exception of UnquietDad) - most of us just think they should have to abide by the same rules on admissions as other schools.

The problem in our area is that out the three nearest schools one's good (best in county), one's mediocre and the last one's failing( worst in county). Everybody who is able moves out of the catchment area of the failing school. This really does not create a diverse mix of people. The primaries in this area are starting to fill up but only because the ones in other areas are over-subscribed. 2/3's of our primary's pupils come from outside the catchment.

The other two schools are massively over-subscribed within their own catchment ares so even if you spend the extra money you're not guaranteed to get a place. The good one has just changed from distance being a criteria to a lottery within catchment. This has stopped it becoming filled with only the people who can afford the higher prices near the school. Many people were up on their high horse about it but it was mainly those who had paid through the nose for their house.

Our failing local school is not full of disruptive pupils. It's just that the majority of the academic top half has been removed. If people stayed on in this catchment (there's been a study and it's mainly the children who achieved 2A+ in the year 2 SATS which move on) then the schools A-C result would roughly double. Disruptive pupils are everywhere not just bad schools.

Goldberry, I agree that "choice" makes matters worse, but I can't see that a return to catchment areas will solve the problem. Given that Right Move has links to Ofsted reports for every property on the site, you will still get parents buying their way into what they perceive as good schools.

Deadworm - Ah I see. Fingers crossed for you. I remember applying for schools for DS2 in case he didn't pass his entrance exam for his independent and I realise in hindsight I made the choice based entirely on principle, not on where I would really want to send him should it be necessary.

If it was shown to be a way of making good education available more equitably then faith schools ought to admit children on the same criteria as non-faith schools. But could this be done in conjunction with a genuine commitment to preserve their faith staus? Could faith status be treated on a par with the (less authentic and valuable) specialisms that sec schools have?

My nearest sec school (the one DS2 would automatically be sent to if I didn't play the procedures) is a 'sports technology(!)' specialist school. The specialism is crap and spurious. I would far rather protect a religious specialism than that one -- but I suspect that there would be pressure from secular parents to undermine the religious ethos of a school with no religion-favouring admissions criteria.

Goldberry- I agree with you a little, BUT (huge but) if an LEA noticed that a school is for some reason seriously under-subscribed and it cannot be explained by demographics, would you not think that would be a good reason for them to launch an investigation into why the school is unpopular and take serious steps to improve it, rather than trying to force people who don't want to go there to go there anyway. As a teacher, my opinion is that there is far too much cowdung flying around about the effect of socio-economic status on learning.

If children in flood zones in Bangladesh, who are kipping on the roof of their houses several dozens of times a year, can get themselves to school on time, clean and eager to learn every single day (told to me by a colleague who worked for a while at a school out there), then frankly a vanishingly small number of people in this country can have poverty or social deprivation as an excuse for low attainment. I think the truth in this country is that the class system, which was flattening out, has been reinstated through the education system with the blessing of sociologists.

I think it's the biggest load of divisive sh1t I've ever heard, that of course children cannot achieve because they come from X estate. So convenient for those in power to believe it though. Yes, the children from X estate may need extra facilities to be on a par with well-off and fortunate children, but it's hardly rocket science for an LEA to spend a bit more money on ensuring that the library at school is kept open till 6 with kind and skilled help available for homework, is it?

(I didn't mean to imply that RightMove was responsible for the whole phenomenon of buying your way into a good state school, btw, just that it is indicative of how widespread this is.)

Catchment areas are blatantly unfair. Lottery is the way to go. With no sibling rule. You shouldn't be able to buy yourself a better state school place than people across town. That's wrong.

Part of the problem in the UK of course is the sheer cost of housing, and the fact that houses are seen as an investment rather than simply a place to live.

But there wouold be absurdities of distance travelled. Children next to School A travelling miles to School B. That wouold erode school links with community. And it would be awful to do away with the sibling rule. It would fracture families.

A lottery that allowed the sibling rule would look cumbersome and arbitrary.

re the lottery. I'm not sure going to separate high schools would fracture a family. People manage two schools when one is at primary and one is at high school well enough. I'm not sure the same school for siblings is always a good idea anyway. The teachers at my sons' school sometimes assume DS2 is the same type of person as DS1 and they are extremely different. One is sporty and outgoing and one is arty and shy.

I totally agree, Duchesse. I wouldn't say it's really down to socio-economic status per se. It's more to do with attitude and upbringing. There may be more bad parenting among disadvantaged families, partly because the parents themselves have not had good experiences, opportunities etc. but there are plenty of disruptive, aggressive kids who do not have the 'excuse' of coming from deprived backgrounds. Equally, I have taught many lovely, eager-to-learn kids from very poor backgrounds. How we begin to address the behaviour issues I really don't know.

I'm not "bashing" church schools - I just don't see their relevance.

The problem is that there is such a thing as a perceived "better" state school. It's the existence of a flawed system which is at fault, not the fact that parents play it to get "the best" - although parents are guilty of buying into the rhetoric.

Replacing it with another flawed system is not the answer.

(And anyone - politician or parent - who genuinely thinks it would be a good idea had better be ready to put their taxes where their mouth is and send their own children through such a system.)

swedes if it's the lottery based system in Brighton that you're basing your thoughts on, then it's not as clear cut at the media would like to make out.
We have catchment areas for secondary schools, and within some of these areas there is a lottery system. This is due to a few secondary schools being physically next to each other.
Where I live, I am in the catchment for 2 of the secondary schools and the one I would get would be done by lottery. Both schools are commutable to me - luckily enough, both schools are ok, one is outstanding.
The two worst schools in Brighton sit in catchment areas of their own ... so any 'improvement' they might have recieved from a mixed intake is diluted, as parents can choose to move from that catchment area to another - it's done here by postcode.

I think the argument about abolishing faith schools is ridiculous and stems from envy because yes a certain proportion of faith school are good. But it doesn't seem to have occured to many of you that these schools are good exactly because they are faith schools and that if there weren't faith school they might not be so good. The reason is that through their religious ethos they are more nuturing and more supportive and trying to encourage children to want to learn and to be kind and fair to each other and also to respect certain values which nowadays are completely stamped on like authority and discipline.

You might be because your precious child cannot go to a faith school because of religion, but at least the admission is fairer in that anyone of that faith has a chance to join the school irrespective of their means, their status etc...

It is for this ethos and the fact that the children actually get to mingle with others from all walk of life and also because the school ethos is more nurtering and less competitve that I chose to put DD in a faith school. That and the fact that me and DH were also educated in faith schools.

Would I pay to keep my DD in the faith school, yes of course, but I too pay taxes so why should I. Also private fee paying faith schools would defeat the object of ensuring that people from all walks of life join.

Finally if the "faith" selection criteria was removed but the school tried to retain his faith school education system, I am sure many people on here would be the first to start AIBU thread because their child was "force" to join in assembly or to have religious educations.

Finally the lying to get your kinds in the local faith school is not as wispread as the myth goes, and yes, most people in DD's school go to mass...before admission but still when they get their place. I wonder why that might be? Prehaps they actually believe in the stuff??

For the last time

THERE IS NO ARGUMENT ABOUT ABOLISHING FAITH SCHOOLS - THE ARGUMENT IS ABOUT FAITH SCHOOLS OPERATING WITH FAIR ADMISSIONS POLICIES.

And breathe.

and I still think that their admission policy is fairer as if you are of the faith EVERYONE CAN GET IN regardless of their class, status, means or needs....

There is no need to shout really.

I am just really fed up of the faith bashing which seems to rear its head wherever possible. It is discrimination too you know

There is an argument about abolishing faith schools. I can think of plenty of MN posters who would like to abolish faith schools. But that argument isn't directly relevant to this thread, or at least not to where the thread started off.

what is unchristian is assuming we are all that we can't go to a faith school

a school, that is a state school, i.e. paid for by the state, should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion

why is a non religious child less deserving of a place than a religious one? what's so important about religion that you couldn't teach to your children yourself at home or in Sunday School but you needed a full time church education?

And if that church school was a failing one and your alternatives were outstanding ofsted non church state schools, are you telling me you would pick the failing church school over the outstanding ofsted non church ones?

I am no faith basher. I have wasted many hours of my life on here defending religion and religious institutions.

But your statement "their admission policy is fairer as if you are of the faith EVERYONE CAN GET IN regardless of their class, status, means or needs" makes no sense. This is applicable to all state schools isn't it? A state school that only allows children whose parents express a particular belief cannot be fairer than one that takes any children, regardless of their parents professed faith.

fox if a faith school was not a faith school then it would be exactly like any other school it would be either a good one that people want to be in the catchment for or not.

Personally I think all children should get places in "good schools" but the problem is many parents are not satisfied with just good schools, they want "best" schools and a lot of the problems comes from class and from competitiveness in my opinion

And yes there is Sunday school but their are values in faith schools which are instilled daily and that is why I want DD to go, like respect your teacher, respect your peers, work hard and be rewarded or praised when you have done something right. Going to a faith school to me is important because I view this as a way for DD to be a rounded person not just a performing student. So here you go flame me for my choices if you want but I see a certain benefit in going to a state school that is not the fact that it might get DD to the best secondary or best uni or whatever. I want DD to be happy and a decent person that treats other with respect that is my choice, like it or not.

With regards to your last question that is actually an interesting one. I live in a catchment for excellent non faith schools probably better than DD's faith school. Yet when I applied for DD's school place, there were only faith schools on my application form. My three choices were faith schools some good, some not so good, some near, some further afield.... draw your own conclusions.

With regards to secondary schools, there are alot of excellent private schools where I live, there is also an excellent state secondary school that my house happens to be in the catchment for. I can afford the excellent schools, I am in the catchment for the state school, yet DD will go to the faither secondary school which is much further afield again and which academically is probably nowhere near as good.

So please do not belittle the values I hold dear and imply I am a hypocrit when I am just different to you

Zephire I disagree with you. Where I live, whether you get in a "good" school very much depends of your income and whether you can afford to buy or rent in the catchment. If you cannot then you get the "dump" secondary school which is the worse in the country.

Take someone with very modest income like a nurse or a cleaner and imagine that person has three DC. Do you really think she could pay the extortionate amount of money needed to pay for stupid rent or house price?

Now take the same family, and imagine there are of some faith, the catchment is wider and they are meeting the faith criteria. They will get in the faith school, just as would a doctor or solicitor's son.

So what is best then? To be discriminated (positively) because of your religion or to be discriminated (negatively) because of your means?

lifeistooshort "respect your teacher, respect your peers, work hard and be rewarded or praised when you have done something right" are not values specific to Christianity. Why on earth would you think they were?

lifeistooshort -

"So what is best then? To be discriminated (positively) because of your religion or to be discriminated (negatively) because of your means?"

Neither is best. They are both wrong.