Abbylubber and bagsforlife - well done for throwing stuff into the ring!
bagsforlife - initially I was v. in favour of a lottery. Then I thought about it a bit. In principle, it's not a bad idea. But ...
For it to work, it requires a consortium of schools over a given geographical area. How big is that area going to be? What shape will that area cover? Will it cover LEA/borough lines? Will that solve the issue of areas where parents are scrambling to cross borough lines? It'll stop them, but will it actually assuage problems that are borough-wide, that are compelling them to act in that way.
There's no way you can have both lottery consortia and local schools. Some children will end up travelling large distances in such a system. Especially in rural areas. Isn't that against the basic, fundamental ethos of comprehensives?
And will the system be in place for every child? Won't you have to re-inforce sibling criteria? Most people won't manage with their dc at separate schools, all over the place. So there will have to be a policy of get one in, get all in. Would that be fair, though? And what if you move?
And what will people feel about it? I really mean that - it's a serious consideration. The British aren't very fond of "mass" experiences, they're a pretty liberal, individualistic bunch. I just don't think they'd take well to such a directed, "choiceless" experience. At some level, it simply makes explicit the lack of choice available in the current system, which causes such offense and ill-feeling as it is.
And isn't there something just, intrinsically wrong, wrong, wrong about children being allocated a school, any school? One problem, now, is that some children just do not fit with the school they are allocated. That situation will be magnified and writ large in a lottery system.
Not everyone wants the same thing. eg. not everyone wants an academic school. Many do but the incredible and increasing popularity of the BRIT school tells us that children and parents are wise enough to recognise that excellence takes many forms.
How do you lottery for that? Imagine if you quiet, academic child is allocated the BRIT school, whilst their arty, performing friend is trekking off to the traditional, exams, exams, exams place?
You can only do it if you squash all schools and children into the same shape. And people are objecting enough to that already.
And as I said earlier, it strikes me that, at a fundamental level, the lottery system is an acceptance and admission of the failure of the current system, without positing any more positive solution. It produces a necessary limit (in that all schools in a consrtium will, by necessity, have to offer identical content).
Again; if someone were to seriously put forward Borges' Babylonian Lottery as a solution to the injustices of the capitalist system, we'd think they were barking. So why does it seem attractive when applied to our dc's schools? We must be really desperate to be giving this idea serious consideration.
Just my twopence worth. And it's only offered in the interests of discussion. As I said, I used to be quite a proponent of the lottery system. I can see why it might be used as a short-term solution. However, I do believe that as a long-term solution it puts a necessary limit on what might be achieved in a more exciting and imaginitive school system.