Tories want to abolish school catchment areas

[peanutbutterkid]

They say .

Am I the only one who thinks this is mostly looney? Schools will have to have lotteries about who gets in, so you could live next door but be stuffed and have to travel miles to get your child(ren) into any school.

School run madness and traffic will only get worse. What happend to the Tories' new green image??

It ignores the reality that "good" schools are usually only so "good" because of the social advantages of the people living in the surrounding area (middle class kids do better in school than poor kids, separate from what the schools are like). Getting poor kids into "good" schools will only bring the test scores of schools in good/bad areas closer together, not especially help the poor kids.

Rich Tory supporters won't care about this policy because they don't mind about state schools where they live, they send their kids private, anyway.

I live in catchment of average schools when I could have afforded catchemnt of excellent schools, btw, in case you just think I'm protecting my own interests.

Does everyone else like Tory idea, or think more like me?

Sorry iota - missed that bit lol!

Wonder how they would ensure that a free-for-all ballot was fairly handled?

My housing decision is based solely on catchment area. If they abolished this I'd put my kids in private school before you could say "David Cameron is a tosser".

Me too, 2manypimms, only we couldn't afford private so we'd be stumped.

pointydog: "I think the big question here is what makes a school crap." Good question. It's not the teachers. You can get the most fantastic teachers in the worst schools - they're often the ones who enjoy a "challenge". Some of the schools with the worst results have the best "value added" - DW's old school used to do wonders getting kids with no hope of any qualifications up to a handful of Ds and Es.

So is it the kids?

OTW I think it's the parents - because if they value education so will the kids. They problem is a minority can bring down the majority.

I can't afford private either so I'm stuck with what we've got, thankfully the best of a bad bunch!

I think from some comments on mn that people just look at the kids and exam league tables and say 'oh it's a crap school, no way is my johnny going there'.

And this whole business of prizing choice at all costs has left the crazy situation of people moving house to fit into catchments. And so schools no longer have that vital mix of kids and family backgrounds. The kids with poorer parents or parents who don;t care much for school (for whatever reason) all end up going to schools that other people say are 'crap'. And division gets worse.

I think parents and politics are creating this situation, not 'crap schools' at all.

Pointydog that is a very valid point the schools round me are just like that and they are not getting any better.I agree with having a better mix of kids but i dont think it is ever going to happen. How are these kids going to get a chance if they dont see any different

Could someone explain to me WHY they abolished the Grammar School system? It seemed to me (being an outsider) that it was not a bad way of educating those with the ability.

I'll take a stab at it....people were unhappy about "selection by ability" just as they are now about catchment areas.

Again...if catchment rule goes, I'll work 12 jobs to see my two go to a decent private school.

Granted, they'll probably grow up to drop out of society and live in a refrigerator box, but darn it - they'll be well educated!

2manypimms: Over-zealous politically-correct axe-swinging by the Labour governments of the 60s and 70s, mainly. Largely Tony Crosland's crusade. He vowed to "smash every fucking grammar school in the country." Charming man.

I can't believe I found myself agreeing with everything Jeremy Clarkson says in the Sunday Times today here

Goodness. But I don't like Jeremy Clarkson

I rad that VG - scarily topical wasn't it - I note that he didn't actuallt say if it was a state school that he was going to send his children to

Bet they are off to a private school - but nevertheless his points were pretty close to the mark.

Do ANY "celebrities" send their children to the local state school?

[tumbleweeds...]

Anybody's dd/ds go to normal state school with the kids of celebs?

I can't recognise the universe that Clarkson lives in. Did he go to private school, does anyone know?

Paul Macartney sent his kids to state school, didn't he?

I assumed from the reference to Jeremy Clarkson liking the 'housemaster' that he was talking about a private school. Did like his attitude, though.

My old school (state grammar) used to do very well in the league tables when they had a particular head, who has now moved to North London Collegiate (top in the Times list). My mother taught at my school when she was replaced by the new head who was not in the least bit interested in league tables, and reckoned the school was greatly improved by the change in attitude even as its position in the tables slumped.

Even so, I can't imagine not even LOOKING at the league tables like Clarkson says.

Happily, I can say that I don't like Clarkson nor do I agree with his article.

I presume this 'do away with catchment area' thing is a response to the colonisation of schools seen to be doing well by middle-class parents?

At the most sought after school in our area, there were almost no spaces for proximity last year, with all the spaces going to siblings...most of whom by now lived way way out of catchment. (because parents buy or rent for a year or two to get their first child ionto reception, and then move to a more 'desirable' area, freeing up the housing in the road for the next wave of new reception kids, and so it goes on - with the families entitled to siblings places multiplying faster than if housing turnover was stable). Meanwhile, the children in the Local Authority housing in the next street cannot get in, and have to cross 4 lanes of traffic and a longish walk to the next nearest school which has a far more challenging environment.

Instead of abolishing catchement, all they need to do is not make a place for siblings automatic once people are miles away, unless there is a very serious reason for having moved out of the area.

Not sure I quite get your school's situation Blu - are you saying it's a sought-after school, but not in an area where people want to live? Why do people move out of the area after a year or two?

Round here, it's more that house prices in the best catchments are almost unaffordable, so moving in for a year or two is unthinkable - once you're in, you bloody well dig your heels in and stay put. There is a real "pull up the drawbridge" mentality in this city.

There was a big controversy a few years back when the local council tightened a catchment in a "crunchy" area by about 20 houses. People who'd spent a fortune to get into a decent catchment were suddenly faced with huge mortgages AND a crap school. There was middle-class apoplexy. The papers got involved. Not sure how it was resolved - I think about a dozen families were affected, and some went private, some appealed and others gritted their teeth.