School places

Greatnan!!!! Are you looking for a rational, sensible , well argued debate, focussing on the issues, unmarred by unnecessary swearing, cod psychoanalysis and personal insults? If so.....

When I GS started at his secondary school, a school that had been in 'Special Measures', but chosen because it was the nearest and his parents thought it would improve, there was evidence of 'social engineering' and a particularly bright, sporty boy who did not have this school on his list of three, and who did not live in the area, was given a place there.
My GS had attended an interview and a pre-test for the entrance exam to a nearby selective school. He attended wearing his Chelsea top, he was told not to attempt the entrance exam! He had not been 'prepared' as some of his schoolmates had and, altho' his position in the class was higher, they were accepted. (Most had private tutors.)
Greatnan I think it is a 'lottery' especially where schools are popular and over-subscribed.
My idea would be to involve feeder primary schools, altho' this would be more work for already overburdened Heads.

Are we just talking about secondary schools? The reason I ask is because I know some areas use the feeder school system for allocating some of the secondary schoo places available which means then that parents need to get their children into the 'right' primary school so the allocation policies of primary schools become important. I know that the real solution is for all schools to be good schools but for a million reasons that's a long way off so we are really looking at sticking plasters aren't we? I'd go for the lottery at secondary school level as the fairest. However, where there are state schools which are selective eg Kent, Calderdale, I despair. The private tutoring industry is absolutely enormous - for the most successful
Tutors, you have to put your child's name down before they start primary school!

Stricter local catchment areas? No easier answer. The poorer don't get the chance to move home to get better schools.

I think though a lack of aspiration in parents and children in many areas is a big problem. Parents who are interested in their children's education can do a lot to improve their children's and the schools performance whatever their financial position.
I don't think this factor is given quite enough prominence in looking at why some schools fail.

Poverty is a factor but I suspect that parental attitudes to the value of education is more important.

How do you improve that situation for those poorer people who have probably come from difficult and dysfunctional families and have had any idea of aspiration squashed in their very early years. Set up to fail before they are five perhaps and those attitudes have been passed down the generations?

It depends a lot where you live. Most kids here go to the nearest primary school and feel lucky to have it since the council keeps trying to close schools and shove small kids onto buses (without a parent or carer) from the age of four and a half. There is one private school which filters out a small percentage of both primary and secondary age pupils. Then there is one secondary school covering a large area.

Although I lived in a less rural place in Oxfordshire, pretty much the same 'rules' applied – nearest primary (there were four in the town; the catholic children being separated from the rest) and one secondary to which all but a small (private school) percentage went. It worked fine there too. I think the catholic children mostly went to the non-denominational secondary school too.

I'm really pleased I didn't live in complicated school areas when my kids were little.

In the past, catchment areas were used but with some flexibility. They seemed to work well. I think it started getting silly when so-called parental 'choice' was introduced during the Thatcher years.

I know this is a silly answer, but I wouldn't start from here.

We have the most socially divided education system in Europe and schools reflect that. The wealthy go to private schools - of varying quality but socially exclusive, the lucky live in an area where there is a mixed catchment area, and the unlucky and the poor live in an area where many schools are described as poor, when the reality is that the intake is from a very deprived area with huge social problems. Again, the schools reflect their intake.

Until we manage to achieve a more equal society and when, as a nation, we are prepared to fund state schools in the same way that Eton, Roedean, Cheltenham Ladies and the rest are funded, no amount of tinkering with catchment areas will make an iota of difference.

And until there is proper provision for children with special needs, whether they be for cognitive difficulties, ASD, or behaviour, schools with a disproportionate number of SEN will continue to be described as poor and parents who can, will avoid them. By fair means or foul.

I tend to agree, mice. But successive governments seem keen to increase division (faith schools in particular) rather than to reduce it.

This is the age old dilemma. the aim of the 11+ was to give bright children from all backgrounds a chance of making the most of their ability. Comprehensives were introduced, to give every child a chance to shine, not just those who passed an exam at 11, but comprehensive education meant neighbourhood education and the danger, now proven, that the attainments of schools tend to match those of the neighbourhood they are situated in.

I think the answer is quite simply there is no ideal system that allows every child to attain their full capabilities, every system has both children who succeeded because or despite their education or were failed by it or were miserably unhappy. The key definer of a child's achievements is their home background. Poverty and deprivation will shape their aspirations, but most of all it is the care and aspirations of their parents that define their lives.

Three of my grandparents were born into abject poverty and appalling living conditions in the 1880s. A time when class divisions and prejudice against Irish immigrants was at a height. It was their natural ability and aspirations for them selves and their children which meant they, themselves attained comfort and status in life and their children all achieved senior positions in a range of professions.

Agree, Bags, mice. None of the so-called reforms of the last 30 years has really made any difference. A lot of us pinned our hopes on comprehensive schools but they didn't do what it was claimed they would. At least with the 1944 reform, everybody knew where they were with a highly selective system designed to be highly selective.

My GDs live in Kent in a town where the grammar school reigns. Eldest GD is at the end of Year 5, she will not be sitting the 11+ and will go to the nearest secondary school which is improving enormously under an inspirational head, having been the local sink school for years. My daughter is determined that neither of her girls will go near the divisive grammar school system. Amongst my GD's friends and their parents there is already a lot of chat about who might be going where, massive amounts of coaching and a jostling for position, despite the fact that they still have over a year of primary school left. My GD is a sensitive little soul and is already upset about what is being said by some of her friends. The children will be spread amongst lots of secondary school, four single-sex grammars, church secondary, all girls, all boys and the mixed secondary. What a mess.
I think we should copy the most successful school system in the world which is Finland, where all state schools are excellent and everyone goes to the nearest one.

Same here in Switzerland - apart from expats from UK who favour private!

Secondary schools have been comprehensive in Scotland for generations. The system works. Given a chance a comprehensive system does work. The problem in England is that it has never been given a real chance because of snobbish opposition.

Primary schools are mostly comprehensive throughout the UK of course. There isn't much prejudice against that comprehensive system so why are people so critical of it for schooling older children?

The academy 'virus' is spreading through primary schools. My GSs' school is in the process of 'academisation'. Will this enable even primary schools to be selective?

I think it's the sheer size of some of the comprehensives Bags as primary school tend in general to be smaller, therefore their 'comprehensiveness' works. Often three or mor primaries feed into one large secondary school. It can work, but it needs an inspirational Headteacher, great management and excellent teachers at the 'chalk face'.
Often children get lost in the system. There is emphasis on success for the able pupil, extra help for pupils with 'special needs' but sometimes the average pupil misses out; the kind of child who causes no problems but is almost invisible.

I suspect that the success of the Finnish education system has less to do with system and much more to do with environment.

Finland does not have the large cities we have with large areas of deprivation, nor does it have large affluent suburbs.

More importantly, and I am sure this is what would make any half-good education system work well. It is that their schools are SMALL. The average comprehensive school in Finland has under 200 pupils, check this link www.stat.fi/til/pop/2012/pop_2012_2012-11-15_tie_001_en.html if you do not believe me.

The Finns have small schools where all the teachers are likely to know all the pupils and their problems and have a sense of community. Compare that with the British belief that warehousing children as young as 11 in schools containing as many as 2,000 pupils is a good way to educate them and I suspect we can put our finger on the real reason Finnish education is so good.

Exactly Flickety

Yes, substitute your 'sense of community' for my rather awkward 'comprehensiveness' .. it works better.

All that I can say about the one, huge Comprhensive school in our area is that bullying is rampant and yet the headteacher pays it no attention. Many complaints are made and he ignores them even when the police are called in. Mind you it is expected that pupils will supply ipads and uniforms are top of the range because they make the school look good. It is just a child's bruises which don't matter.

Wish that my children and now my grandchildren had actually been given a choice in the first place!

There are lots of things about the Finnish system that have made it so good. They decided how they wanted to improve schools forty years ago and stuck to it; education there is not a political football. Teachers are educated to Masters level and the profession is respected. All schools are run on the same lines and are state comprehensives.
I have never seen any evidence that suggests that standards are lower in larger schools. I have inspected excellent large schools and unsatisfactory smaller ones myself.
I agree that social cohesion helps make good schools, but good schools promote (in the long term) social cohesion.
I think the problem is that in the UK the politicians, the press and the public criticise schools based on misleading and inaccurate "evidence", governments introduce reforms which may be good or bad, but they can never be properly implemented before schools are obliged to change again. The system is fragmented and messy and there is a lot of snobbery about "good" schools based on nothing very much. Oh and lots of politicians and newspaper editors send their children to independent schools and have no interest in supporting state schools.

I too have worked with large and small secondary schools and there are examples of good and poor practice in both, obviously. I said it takes an excellent all round staff to make it work in larger comprehensives.

Yes agreed Aka, but I think that is true of all schools. I would say that the difference in large schools is that systems have to be excellent and completely consistent; pastoral, assessment, curriculum management, quality of teaching etc. In a smaller school those things have to be good too, but it is easier for senior managers to have a personal overview of everything. You can't rely on that in a large organisation. School leaders need to have absolute clarity about systems and how they work.

Agreed.

Totally agree with Mamie- size is not necessarily good and bad. I've taught in 2 large schools- and the excellent Year pastoral system means that the Head of year, its assistants and the team of form tutors ensure that all the children in that year are known to all of them, and of course all the previous Year Heads, assistants and Form teachers. Small schools can be cosy but not necessarily exciting and forward thinking places- as they tend to attract a certain 'type' of staff, and so do denominational schools.