Call for ban on catchment areas

[hoppybird]

Here

I can't believe that it would actually happen that way, maybe a few pupils whose parents were on the ball would be lucky and get in because their parents would apply earlier, and a first come first served basis would apply, but as I said, the bad schools aren't bad because of teachers, they are bad because the pupils dont want to learn and aren't encouraged by the parents, you'll find most of the 'good' school have parents who want to help, PTA's arranging constant fund raising, parent helpers in classes daily etc, whereas the 'bad' schools the parents don't care.

So the pupils who don't want to learn would still be at the 'bad' school anyway because the parents wouldn't bother to apply, and then on top of that, the pupils would be in the catchment area of the good school, whose parents weren't that bothered either would end up at the bad school too, creating more of a divide.

runnyhabit, my XSIl applied for the school practically next to her house, to be given one (her thrid chocie I believe) that although had a similar postcode took 20 minutes to walk to, a woman who lived next door to that school was given her third choice next to SIL's house, how on earth did they work that out?!

Also when SIL and this woman realised that they ahd been given each others first choices, they tried to appeal and were told they couldn't change because of catchment areas.

Ridiculous.

Totally agree with Hatrick. it is bad enough round here at the moment. There are people who drive to my dd's school who live within walking distance of another school. Not much difference results-wise but they were exercising their choice (but with no regard to the environmental impact). If the system changes to no catchments and a lottery then people will potentially 'put in' for schools nowhere near where they live and everyone will be criss-crossing, driving their children everywhere. We mustn't do a knee-jerk on catchments just because in some areas there are problems without considering the environmental and health (ie lack of exercise) impacts.

Our local Catchment areas are CRAZY! We live on the border of 2 coucils. Council A schools are bottom of country, Council B schools Ofsted Outstanding.

The borders run down middle of roads and loop etc.

We lived on wong side of one road and when we moved (for several reasons) we ended up within a stone's throw of the local sink school (now shut down btw) but in the catchment of one much further away and top of league tables.

DS then got a place at a grammar school 2 bus rides away

It's not first-come-first-served, it's a lottery. Pure blind chance. Poor kids have as much chance as rich kids. That's the whole point.

At least it would mean that the children of parents like me, who simply can't afford to live in Richville but in all other ways are motivated, good parents, would have a chance of going to the best schools. Plus, the 'bad' schools would have a big influx of middle-class, motivated parents too. I can't see how this would be anything other than an improvement.

Also, what about your children having friends who in the same area? Prior to moving, my ds used to go to a great school which was just round the corner for us, but many of the other pupils came from a long way. I don't drive, and he certainly missed out on developing many friendships because of schoolmates living far away.

I don't see the problem with researching an area and choosing where you live which to suit your needs and your children's needs. What's wrong with wanting to do what is best for your child, and using your resources and initiative to do it?

I agree with Hatrick, education spending should be on improving schools, rather than financing school buses.

Hmm, the more I think about it the more I think pointy is right - this is probably a problem that is confined to certain (mostly urban) areas. I don't think it should be instituted will-nilly across the country, but I do think there are certain areas where it would work really well. I live in one, and I used to live in another, so probably have a slightly skewed viewpoint.

Out of interest - those of you who oppose it: are you happy with your local school? And, do you live in a rural or an urban area?

'I don't see the problem with researching an area and choosing where you live which to suit your needs and your children's needs. What's wrong with wanting to do what is best for your child, and using your resources and initiative to do it?'

hoppy - because lots of parents want to do exactly what you describe, but simply can't afford houses in the catchments for the best schools (or even for good-enough schools).

schools should serve their local community
that's it, really

Utterly ridiculous plan.

What happens about siblings? Would there still be sibling priority or there be the risk of having to get 3 children to 3 different schools at opposite ends of a busy main road at the same time?

Children should go to their local school.

In Brighton this has caused mayhem.I think local school is best idea but this does breed huge areas of really expensive houses with all the middle class kids in them because they can afford the house.I don't know what is going to happen here tbh as the roads closest to the best schools are impossible to buy in but the alternative is a truly awful school.We bought a house in a road deliberately to get ds into a good school and then had to sell it as it was sooo expensive we couldn't live which was stressful and ridiculous

In Brighton the effect has been to dramatically increase the applications to private schools. These people are not all Lord and Lady Filthy-Rich, but families who will struggle and re-mortgage and work longer hours to afford them. Is that a desirable outcome?

In Brighton, the system has been engineered to the advantage of middle-class families: it has not been set up in an equitable way at all.

If people want to send their kids to private schools, that's up to them. It's more equitable than them hoovering up taxpayers' money while hogging the places at the best comprehensives on the basis that they can afford to live in the surrounding areas.

'families who will struggle and re-mortgage and work longer hours to afford them' - there are many, many people who could never afford private schools even if they worked 24 hours a day. People who use private schools are almost always more-than-averagely affluent.

policywonk - yes, I do see your point about expensive houses in catchment areas for good schools. When we were looking to move, we saw such an area - half a million pound homes surrounding a great school, in fact it did look like it was a deliberate decision to build the houses around the school in this way on the part of the town planners, there were only about 10 or affordable houses there (we wouldn't have been able to afford even those). That was the exception though. I understand most local authorities have to build a certain percentage social housing and affordable homes in an area.

The place where we now live has a mix of different types of housing, including council housing. It's a small town with three primaries, and we're very happy with the local school because we chose it based on the area. What we did find, was that there are very many very good primary schools everywhere, and we had a wide range of areas to look in.

A lottery, on the face of it, seems like a fair thing, to even out the playing field, but not being able to go to a school on your doorstep because the lottery deemed otherwise is crazy.

But then how do you decide what a "local" school is if you live if you have 2 schools equal distance away (as happens a lot?)

There is a plan near us to build 7000 new houses with various other amenities including schools.

I don't know the mix/type of houses planned (apart from being on a flood plain) but not sure how it would be going to a brand new school, everyone starting together, all local etc etc

Watch that development like a hawk Milliways. Developers are notorious for building and selling the houses first before they get around to (very slowly) providing the amenities they promised in order to get planning permission in the first place.