Choice of schools and hospitals

I have experience of adminsitrating the hospital choices and it costs a FORTUNE. Surely it makes more sense to ensure all hospitals are at the correct standard for the work they do.

gangy5 I couldn't agree more! Earlier in my career I was Head of Y7 (240 intake) at a very good, very popular comprehensive school. At our open days with prospective parents, I spent ages talking to distressed parents who had been told they had the right to choose and were rapidly finding they hadn't. We were full very quickly, from our immediate catchment area and from other top criteria, such as cared for children.

And when we were full, we were full as far as bums on seats were concerned.

I always felt so sorry for these parents.

Yes, it's nonsence. Last year in Trafford, where they have grammar schools too, my grandson sat several entrance exams 5 Saturdays on the trot, and each had different criteria depending on the outcome of the exam results. The more popular ones refused entry with an arbitrary threshold of points earned, but when my son wrote to complain and they knew several children had opted for other schools they had offers for, all of a sudden spaces were available.

Meanwhile, the local comprehensive school was overwhelmed with demands for children who hadn't got grammar school places to be admitted, and parents were saying they had the right to choose. Chaos! Why not just keep up the standard in all schools, as had been said, and do away with all this politicking.

I totally agree - this is a piece of window-dressing and nothing more. We need universal high standard schools and hospitals, so that no-one feels the need to make a choice.
Do they think we are stupid? Can they honestly believe that we will be taken in by this nonsense?

Choice? What choice?

Schools and hospitals different cases maybe. School is a one off choice with a limited number of places available.
No easy answers. Stop publishing misleading league tables would be a start.
Hospitals you are choosing a particular department, waiting lists vary, and if you had something wrong in another part of your body you could then choose another hospital for that.
I did this once - had a choice of 3 and then chose the one i would have been 'sent" to anyway. But there was a call centre involved!
So I can imagine that it does push up costs.

If there are grammar schools and 'comprehensive' schools covering the same catchment areas, the word 'comprehensive' is a lie.

This choice malarky was brought in by Thatcher's government and is, as others have laready said, just a political gimmick and window dressing. The old catchment area system seems a better idea to me, with some flexibility built in for people who live near the borders of any particular area.

In short, I think children should be able to go to the nearest school as much as possible, and that all schools should have sufficient resources to deal with their intake. In rural areas this is pretty much the case anyway, but it also seemed to work in the town I lived in in Oxfordshire where there were four primary schools and one secondary. I'm sure it works elsewhere too and that newspapers hype up the problems experienced by a minority. (I'm not saying that means the problems don't exist; just that they aren't as large as we are led to believe).

As for choice of hospital, if I'm ill I just want to be sent/taken to the one that can treat me effectively. What else would it be about? And how would I know which one that would be?

The Choice programme in the NHS is the system used to provide you with three choices of hospital where they can treat what you have been referred for. This computer programme , its implementation and the numbers of staff involved was GIGANTIC and as far as I am aware most people choose their nearest hospital and a few choose something near a relative who is gong to care for them after their treatment. This malarkey started with the Thatcher government and the Patients Charter. Clinicians didn't want or need it and advised against it but governments continued to spend huge amounts of money on its administration when it could have been spent on providing care as it was thought to be a vote winner..

It seems to me that that the government wants to run the health service and the education service like businesses that need to advertise their wares in order to 'make a sale' rather than as services available to anyone who happens to need them.

I am pleased that susuecb has enlightened us as to how expensive giving these choices is - there's nothing like hearing it from the horse's mouth. I had a feeling that this was the case and as has already been said would much prefer that these costs went towards more sensible things.

As has been said, we all understood that schooling was provided within the catchment area where one lived and I can't see why this cannot continue - nobody argued as to where their child should go as it was a forgone conclusion. If all schools were of a good standard we wouldn't have any worries.

I just can't believe that there is to be legislation for this.

bagitha you are so, so right. Here in Kent there is, as in Trafford, a selective system incorporating grammar schools. I've said it all before, but people here (most people, Jacey!) agonise over not getting their children into these -- poncy-- schools. Aaaagggghhhhhh!

Meant "poncy" to be crossed out. Stet.

'Choosing' a hospital is all very well when you live in a very large urban area but even quite large towns have only have one hospital and the alternative is usually 20 or 30 miles away and inaccessible.

A year or two ago I had to have some specialised tests and I was sent a huge wad of paper listing all the hospitals I could 'choose' from - and then on the last page I was informed that only one of them had the specialist equipment needed for the test. In other words only one hospital could do the tests but they still had to send me all the paperwork so that I could 'choose' the only hospital that could conduct the test.

We have 2 grammar schools where I live but the problem is the entrance exam is open to all including children from other counties amd often places are taken up by them

Mrs T's legacy lives on! Long gone are the days when the local education authority placed children in the nearby schools. Now the poor admissions department has to spend ages sifting through 'preferences' and probably have an impossible gov target to place x% of children at 1st preference schools that they have to meet as well! I think that this has contributed hugely to create the big divides in schools as some were perceived by some parents as 'good' and became oversubscribed leaving others to struggle (money paid to school per pupil) . often it was just based on how new a building was and not to do with the quality of education!
It will only get more complicated with Academies /free schools etc who won't be part of the LA system.......

I don't think it is all down to Mrs Thatcher, although she may have made changes. In 1961 when I was eleven (in the dying days of the eleven plus), my parents and those of my contemporaries completed a form that listed their preferences for secondary schools. I think most people got into their first choice. I seem to recall filling in a similar form for absentdaughter in 1994.

It's all down to the great god, 'Choice'. When will the politicians get it into their thick skulls that the electorate would rather have all-round excellence?

Annobel Politicians don't care what the electorate wants except around the time of elections.

It is a peculiar twist isn't it, Grammar schools that admit children from "out of county" Our borough exports some to nearby Bucks. Kids leave home at the crack of dawn for an hours bus journey, get home late. Miserable and unnecessary when there are high performing comprehensives round the corner.
Why would I want a choice of hospitals - say you have some fairly unusual condition that needs tricky surgery. Would you like a local surgeon to have a go at fixing it, or would you like to go somewhere (even if it is inconvenient) where they have done lots of these operations and have a good success rate?
You can argue that all schools and hospitals should be good and I agree. But every hospital can never have deep expertise in all areas.
But "enshrining in law" is a load of political spin. There is already choice of hospital.