Who's freaking our about school admissions?

neneromanova

On the online form that we fill in, we are able to give an option to tick if we are planning on moving house and if so when and where. I guess they look at that as well when deciding.

Luckily we're not moving but I thought I'd mention that just incase others were able to do that.

Agutka

I am freaking out. I'm glad I no longer attend church, as running the catholic school admission gauntlet might have just done me in.
I'm considering two schools, as they are closest. One is good and massive, one is satisfactory and smaller. The latter has a new headteacher, who is known for turning schools around, all the way to outstanding...
It seems to me too, that the school has a curriculum to stick to, but go about it on the whim of the headteacher. Need more info!
I'd like to think that schools look after every child according to their needs, but maybe they just focus on bringing the poor performing ones up to standard, and as a mother of a genius (:rotfl:aren't we all :cool::p) I don't know...
Coming from Poland we had a different system, where you could be held back a year, or skip a year. Here, they chuck everyone into the same pot and stir. Gets them ready for life in the real world I suppose.

mummyplus3

I am panicing I have no idea what to do, no idea how the schools run here as I've moved and absolutly no idea what any of the schools are like!

I need to try and book into the schools for a visit but they never answer the bloody phone which doesnt fill me with confidence!

balletshoes

mummyplus3 wrote: »

I am panicing I have no idea what to do, no idea how the schools run here as I've moved and absolutly no idea what any of the schools are like!

I need to try and book into the schools for a visit but they never answer the bloody phone which doesnt fill me with confidence!

do you know any parents around you who's children go to the local schools? I'd ask them their opinions.

Thats what I did, asked the people we bought our house from, they had 3 kids similar ages to mine, they all went through school at one school in the area (not our catchment school, but I didn't know that at the time). So thats the school I chose as our first choice.

dirtysexymonkey

elvis86 wrote: »

I can't see the sense in the notion of choice within schools (or any public service for that matter). Surely there shouldn't be a choice as you shouldn't be able to differentiate between one state school and another? They should all be of an equal standard, richer people shouldn't be able to "buy" their kids a place at a better state school.

Just the same as any member of the public going into an NHS hospital should be able to expect the same level of care.

This idea of choice is wrong IMO, the focus should be on ensuring that all public services are of the same standard, and the only way to "buy" you or your family better should be to go private.

just one problem with your ideology - people.

for example, in a middle class area where education and success is highly valued, children are tutored, the parents take an interest in their childrens education, the kids are fed a varied healthy diet at appropriate times, and they spend their time as a family visiting museums, art galleries, doing nature walks, reading and generally just learning to be fully rounded individuals with a passion for learning and having various outlets for their creativity.

the middle class parents often become involved with the school, fundraising and helping out with reading activities or fetes or charity events etc.

compare that to a school on a sink estate where benefits are an acceptable lifestyle choice, school doesnt really matter, parents couldnt care less about their kids education, theyre too busy watching trash tv to do anything than throw a half cooked fish finger at the kids, nothing for breakfast, they spend their time watching tv or out hanging around the streets, and basically have no social skills to speak of.

these parents do nothing. barely turn up for parents evening and think of school as nothing more than free day care.

so school a will benefit hugely, whereas school b will suffer greatly. both have the same resources, but not the same people.

good schools mean that house prices rise, and the reverse is true for bad schools. so parents wanting a decent education for their children will want to live in the catchment area for school a.

how do you propose to change the system? penalise school a? force attendance? restrict school admissions to people who have lived in an area for years and years?

jackyann

This is all behind me, having gone through kids' school days in a less fraught time.
But I would always say consider your catchment area school very carefully. It is so much easier, not just for the journey, but for all the trips to friends, parents helping each other out etc. etc. learning independence by walking part of the way or meeting up with others, and just generally being part of the community - all so much better when you are nearby.

By the time my youngest left school, we had a strange set up in our local area - parents from the nearest large town imagined that our village was posher, so tried to get their children into our schools; however parents from our village thought the market town down the road was posher and tried to get their kids into schools there. I worked with someone from the market town who was trying to get her kids into the schools in the cathedral city a bit further away because the families were "nicer" (aka "posher") - haven't a clue what happened after that!
Sometimes I heretically thought that if the effort that went into trying to get into the "best" schools or the "nicest" catchment area went into spending time with the kids the families would be a lot happier!

elvis86

dirtysexymonkey wrote: »

just one problem with your ideology - people.

for example, in a middle class area where education and success is highly valued, children are tutored, the parents take an interest in their childrens education, the kids are fed a varied healthy diet at appropriate times, and they spend their time as a family visiting museums, art galleries, doing nature walks, reading and generally just learning to be fully rounded individuals with a passion for learning and having various outlets for their creativity.

the middle class parents often become involved with the school, fundraising and helping out with reading activities or fetes or charity events etc.

compare that to a school on a sink estate where benefits are an acceptable lifestyle choice, school doesnt really matter, parents couldnt care less about their kids education, theyre too busy watching trash tv to do anything than throw a half cooked fish finger at the kids, nothing for breakfast, they spend their time watching tv or out hanging around the streets, and basically have no social skills to speak of.

these parents do nothing. barely turn up for parents evening and think of school as nothing more than free day care.

so school a will benefit hugely, whereas school b will suffer greatly. both have the same resources, but not the same people.

good schools mean that house prices rise, and the reverse is true for bad schools. so parents wanting a decent education for their children will want to live in the catchment area for school a.

how do you propose to change the system? penalise school a? force attendance? restrict school admissions to people who have lived in an area for years and years?

I see what you're saying and appreciate that it can never be perfect. It's a complex order, I just can't help but think that this culture of choice is false economy, only appeases a certain type of parent, sends out the wrong message, and isn't going to solve the underlying issues.

It would seem fairer to me if School A served Area A, and School B served Area B. If you live in Area A, your kids go to School A. If you live in Area B, they go to School B.

The idea of parents being able to choose between state schools makes no sense to me. Obviously when given a choice, parents are going to choose the school which is considered best. Demand will exceed supply and X people will always end up disappointed, resulting in a lot of resources being squandered on appeals etc.

Surely it would be better and more straightforward if your address dictated the school your kids attend, and resources were directed at bringing all schools up to scratch.

It just doesn't seem a great system that acknowledges that certain schools are sub-standard, then allows middle-class parents to remove their kids from them, leaving only kids who's parents can't be bothered. What chance does that afford these kids?

I acknowledge that there will always be more aspirational areas that folk will pay more to live in, resulting in some schools having kids who's parents are more educated and interested than others. But in affording choice, the state is basically acknowledging and endorsing the fact that some state schools are sub-standard, and I don't think that's right.

I don't understand why it's so complex (genuinely, perhaps there's good reason but I can't fathom it). Surely all schools should be of the same standard when it comes to facilities etc (perhaps this would involve a programme of improvements at some schools initially), and then should all be paid £X per child they educate? Simple. I don't see or understand why we have situation where School A has state-of-the art equipment in every classroom and School B is falling down? They're all state schools and should have all been given the same funding, surely?

claire16c

elvis86 wrote: »

I see what you're saying and appreciate that it can never be perfect. It's a complex order, I just can't help but think that this culture of choice is false economy, only appeases a certain type of parent, sends out the wrong message, and isn't going to solve the underlying issues.

It would seem fairer to me if School A served Area A, and School B served Area B. If you live in Area A, your kids go to School A. If you live in Area B, they go to School B.

The idea of parents being able to choose between state schools makes no sense to me. Obviously when given a choice, parents are going to choose the school which is considered best. Demand will exceed supply and X people will always end up disappointed, resulting in a lot of resources being squandered on appeals etc.

Surely it would be better and more straightforward if your address dictated the school your kids attend, and resources were directed at bringing all schools up to scratch.

It just doesn't seem a great system that acknowledges that certain schools are sub-standard, then allows middle-class parents to remove their kids from them, leaving only kids who's parents can't be bothered. What chance does that afford these kids?

I acknowledge that there will always be more aspirational areas that folk will pay more to live in, resulting in some schools having kids who's parents are more educated and interested than others. But in affording choice, the state is basically acknowledging and endorsing the fact that some state schools are sub-standard, and I don't think that's right.

I don't understand why it's so complex (genuinely, perhaps there's good reason but I can't fathom it). Surely all schools should be of the same standard when it comes to facilities etc (perhaps this would involve a programme of improvements at some schools initially), and then should all be paid £X per child they educate? Simple. I don't see or understand why we have situation where School A has state-of-the art equipment in every classroom and School B is falling down? They're all state schools and should have all been given the same funding, surely?

Where I live it does pretty much come down to catchment i.e if you live in area A you go to school A which is near you. Most of the schools are over subscribed anyway so picking another school would be pointless as if youre not in the catchment area, chances are you wont get in. But then the schools are all pretty good anyway so it wouldnt make sense to pick somewhere else.

A bit further away there used to be a really awful school, but then the area around it was a really bad estate and so in the way that dirtysexymonkey described the parents probably wouldnt care anyway.

With the funding thing, lots of schools tend to ask parents to contribute money each term/year etc (to add to the funds they do get which dont go far). So at my old secondary school they built a big new technology block with kitchens and stuff, mainly from parents money. However lets say they had asked parents from a poorer area, they are going to be less likely to give that contribution, therefore the new block doesnt get built.

dirtysexymonkey

elvis86 wrote: »

I see what you're saying and appreciate that it can never be perfect. It's a complex order, I just can't help but think that this culture of choice is false economy, only appeases a certain type of parent, sends out the wrong message, and isn't going to solve the underlying issues.

It would seem fairer to me if School A served Area A, and School B served Area B. If you live in Area A, your kids go to School A. If you live in Area B, they go to School B.

The idea of parents being able to choose between state schools makes no sense to me. Obviously when given a choice, parents are going to choose the school which is considered best. Demand will exceed supply and X people will always end up disappointed, resulting in a lot of resources being squandered on appeals etc.

Surely it would be better and more straightforward if your address dictated the school your kids attend, and resources were directed at bringing all schools up to scratch.

It just doesn't seem a great system that acknowledges that certain schools are sub-standard, then allows middle-class parents to remove their kids from them, leaving only kids who's parents can't be bothered. What chance does that afford these kids?

I acknowledge that there will always be more aspirational areas that folk will pay more to live in, resulting in some schools having kids who's parents are more educated and interested than others. But in affording choice, the state is basically acknowledging and endorsing the fact that some state schools are sub-standard, and I don't think that's right.

I don't understand why it's so complex (genuinely, perhaps there's good reason but I can't fathom it). Surely all schools should be of the same standard when it comes to facilities etc (perhaps this would involve a programme of improvements at some schools initially), and then should all be paid £X per child they educate? Simple. I don't see or understand why we have situation where School A has state-of-the art equipment in every classroom and School B is falling down? They're all state schools and should have all been given the same funding, surely?

re facilities: in area a, the kids arent smashing up the classrooms every day, whereas in area b they are.

its easy to say all facilities should be the same, but that doesnt matter nearly as much as the people. the students themselves and their families and the attitude to education that they bring is huge.

school a will have educated parents queuing up to offer their services voluntarily, whereas in school b the parents are too busy watching loose women.

youve just said that you want a catchment scheme, but then say you dont think middle class parents should be able to choose a school - well under your system they still would be able to by moving. it would be far easier in your scheme to do this as the address would guarantee entry.

a parents allegiance is with their own child, and you cannot force a decent parent to keep their child in a terrible school. that is disgraceful. keeping the child in that environment wont help the other awful kids, it will just ensure another kid doesnt reach his potential. you might not like the idea that some parents are useless, but they are, and you cant change that by throwing money at them (evidenced by 13 years of labour) or by forcing decent parents to do their job for them.

your principles about this are all very well and good, but its that sort of thinking that prevents social mobility and will destroy the future for the country and these children.

elvis86

dirtysexymonkey wrote: »

re facilities: in area a, the kids arent smashing up the classrooms every day, whereas in area b they are.

its easy to say all facilities should be the same, but that doesnt matter nearly as much as the people. the students themselves and their families and the attitude to education that they bring is huge.

school a will have educated parents queuing up to offer their services voluntarily, whereas in school b the parents are too busy watching loose women.

youve just said that you want a catchment scheme, but then say you dont think middle class parents should be able to choose a school - well under your system they still would be able to by moving. it would be far easier in your scheme to do this as the address would guarantee entry.

a parents allegiance is with their own child, and you cannot force a decent parent to keep their child in a terrible school. that is disgraceful. keeping the child in that environment wont help the other awful kids, it will just ensure another kid doesnt reach his potential. you might not like the idea that some parents are useless, but they are, and you cant change that by throwing money at them (evidenced by 13 years of labour) or by forcing decent parents to do their job for them.

your principles about this are all very well and good, but its that sort of thinking that prevents social mobility and will destroy the future for the country and these children.

I can't argue with some of your points, it's a minefield. I guess it's maybe 2 seperate issues?

Choice. Where "choice" allows parents a choice of X number of schools, with them applying for the one(s) that they think is/are better, I don't agree with it. I can't see how it's productive, as demand will inevitably outstrip supply when it comes to the schools that are deemed to be the best.

To me, choice like that only works when you're paying for something. If there are 3 private schools in a town, then by all means they should compete for students (ie customers), as with any business. But where a service is state-funded, it doesn't seem fair to me to give people a choice like that. As taxpayers we all have a right to expect a certain level of service, and there's no reason why you should have to (or for that matter, be able to) "shop around".

The second (and maybe seperate) issue is that of some schools having a catchment area full of middle-class parents, whilst others serve council estates full of disinterested parents. You're correct in saying that this wouldn't be solved if school places were strictly allocated by address (ie those living in Area A attend School A, those in Area B attend School . Whilst certainly an issue that we should address, this is way more far-reaching than schools, and involves lots of issues around parenting, healthcare, the benefits system etc.

I guess what I'm saying is that whilst there will always be more and less affluent areas, and whilst people will always have the "choice" of paying more to live amongst people of a higher class (and therefore allow your kids to attend school with these people's children), I can't see the point in allowing people to choose between 2 or 3 schools, or in allocating any resources to this, be it through facilitating the applications process or through dealing with disputes and appeals.

The time and money would be better spent trying to foster an environment where the occurence of certain schools being condemnded/demonised is less common, and there is more of a level playing field.