Given the large amount of threads about admissions, how would you change the current system to make it fair for all?

[itsmeitsmeolord]

Or do you think that would be an impossible task?

The catchment area for dd's secondary ed consists of two schools which are both classed as failing.
We are doing 11+, doing a couple of tests for state schools out of catchment and as a last resort will have to consider private ed.

It is highly unlikely that dd would get an offer for anywhere other than one of the two failing schools.
As a parent I want my child to go to a school that seems to care about its' pupils, I'm not looking for massively high results but would like to see that able pupils reach their full potential and less able students are not written off.

How do you think we could fix the system so that all children have a chnace of a decent education that will encourage them whatever their abilities and allow children to be educated fairly locally thus being a part of their local community?

Will be watching with interest.

Would it be possible for schools to have to take a certain % of children of all ranges of achievement ?

The obvious and only fair system would be to have good standard schools all over.

Wish I knew the answer to this one!

For starters, though, I feel most secondary schools are too big. This means that

a) they can be very impersonal and don't fit all children within them
b) in any one area you may not have a wide choice of schools

I know that size has other advantages (facilities, range of subjects) but for me schools of 1000+ pupils are just too big.

Of course, maybe making the schools smaller would make the divide between good and bad schools even bigger!

Everybody goes to the school nearest to them geographically - as the crow flies, doorstep to doorstep.

And (and here's the bit I MAY have a bit of trouble getting through Parliament) nobody is allowed to move house if they have a child 2 years either side of either statutuory school age or secondary transfer age.

firsttimemamma, I do think the problem of bad schools is primarily down to variations in pupil intake more than teachers and school policies. But how to solve this one? Lottery maybe, but it doesn't seem very popular!

"nobody is allowed to move house if they have a child 2 years either side of either statutuory school age or secondary transfer age." good idea

itsme Timely OP! I was considering doing one on this myself!!

kneazle Could you expand on your point for me. How does 'a redistribution' of pupils help to ease the lack of good reasonable schools?

I think the 'not-moving' thing is good, but impossible. How about stopping the sibling rule instead. That way people won't move into catchment and then move out when oldest child is in school to a cheaper house miles away, safe in the knowledge that the others will get in even though they have to be driven.

It really hacks me off that many local kids don't get our local schools due to this.

"Everybody goes to the school nearest to them geographically - as the crow flies, doorstep to doorstep."

How is that fair, Seeker? The direct result of that is house prices rise around the good schools, pricing poorer children out of the school.

firsttimemama has it exactly right: The obvious and only fair system would be to have good standard schools all over.

You didn't read my bit about not being allowed to move!

What worries me about local schools only for local kids though, is what happens in a area where the level of literacy/numeracy is generally much lower than the national average/targets? Would we end up with pockets of crap schools still?

What about teachers? How do we make sure that each school gets a good mix of decent teachers?

Love the not-moving rule

jack - Good schools as they are now are usually considered so because of the GCSE pass rate. You get into a situation where most of the higer achieving children all go to one school. Therfore, the pass rate at that school is higher. It is not because it is a better school. Often the Value added in so called poor schools is very high. I was just wondering if you could at least even out the GCSE perfomance in schools by even out the academic intake.

not sure ?

It all depends on the definition of a good school really ?

Good schools everywhere. Failing that, lottery systems for over-subscribed schools, or enforcible demographic breakdowns to ensure that schools reflect the social make-up of their surrounding area.

Lottery systems are already used, was it kerrymum who had that system in Ireland and it was utterly awful??

Reflecting the social make up of a surrounding area is only a good thing if it is varied though isn't it? (confuses self).

Our area is classed as deprived, children enter school with a lower level of literacy than the national average, if we rely on varied demographic to make schools better then I don't think it would work.

I really do think the key is good schools whatever the area/demographic.
More choice for those with special needs/SEN and I think equal funding should be considered as well.
Grammar schools to be phased out as well, they are not helping with standards I think as they polarise the system IMO. (yes I realise I am a total hypocrite on this point as we are doing the 11+).

Kneazle and Policy - are you saying that educational levels overall are fine - it's just that they're spread out unevenly?

And, having lurked on a few 'admissions' threads it's not just the exam results in some schools which are scary - it's about ethos and discipline. Are these also just a function of pupil mix?

I'm more in favour of redistributing the good teachers! As suggested by itsme.

Itsme although it?s counter-intuitive, I believe there is some research which indicates that non-grammar schools in grammar school areas actually do better than similar schools in areas without grammar schools, if that makes sense

Still a crap system, though, I agree.

Really? We have grammar schools here (admittedly only a small number left) but most of the rest of the schools are pretty bad.

I would prefer a system where I know that my academic child will be stretched just as much as a not so academic child of you see what I mean.

everyone should go to the local school. no religion/selection/independent.

easy

The nearest school system isn't fair. It just means the house prices are ramped up around the good schools so they get better and better whilst the schools in poor areas don't have any parents with money or connections to advocate for them. The lottery system is the only fair way but everyone hates it. Its not good for siblings if one gets into an outstanding school and one ends up in a special measures school either. If the lottery system was used universally and long term then eventually the standards should even out as the middle class parents who would otherwise pay, pray or move will be forced to put a lot of time and energy in helping their childs sink school.

I was talking about this the other morning with dh when someone on R4 was announcing plans for loads more academies as their solution to fairer admissions.Surely it would be better to plough more money into our current schools to ensure all schools were good .
Our LA has recently had to have a consultation over fairer admissions as currently 80 per cent of the places were going to children in rural areas who were guaranteed their preference, whereas children who lived in the town centre (er, like US!)were getting 4th or 5th choice.None of the solutions offered were perfect.
I do feel strongly that the closest school option is flawed. Believe me, if it had been possible financially for us to have moved into the catchment area of our preferred schools - which incidentally are within 1/2 a mile of each other - and around a mile from our home, yet the average house price in that wealthy area is at least £250 thousand MORE than our house would be worth.
It's a form of discrimination.

So if we have no catchment areas, how do we ensure a good mix and good teaching in every school.
Because at the moment, I think that the standard of teaching in each school varies greatly.

The lottery system would only work if teaching was standardised, I feel it is down to leadership in schools in a lot of cases. The schools with the best headteachers tend to be well led and have good behaviour from most students.
The less well led ones seem to have the behaviour issues, low results etc.

So, leading on from that, should we be training decent headteachers for the future? If so how?

"The schools with the best headteachers tend to be well led and have good behaviour from most students."

itsme Well put!! I'd add that counties who invest the most in educating and paying teachers (e.g Denmark) have the most consistently good education systems. But would we all be happy with the associated tax levels??

Seeker, I did read the bit about not being able to move. All that requires is more careful planning. It solves nothing (or, perhaps makes a small enclave of houses nearest to good primary and secondary schools hideously expensive).

?The schools with the best headteachers tend to be well led and have good behaviour from most students?

That?s certainly true of where we live. 7-8 years ago our local school was on special measures and had a terrible reputation. Then a dynamic new, young(ish) head arrived and has turned the whole school around, not least by making it clear that she has high expectations of staff and students alike.

Last year for the first time it had a waiting list (this is in an area with numerous grammar schools).

One problem with a lottery system is that you have children being bussed or driven all over the place, which isn?t good for either the children or the environment and just seems to me to be trying to hard to solve a problem which would be best addressed by improving all schools.