Possible primary school appeal

poet123

Catchment areas are notoriously difficult issues. In the case of faith schools it relates to the parish boundary,which can be illogical but historical.

Today more and more building/estates mean more kids and new schools which blur the boundaries. The catchment area of the school my son attends has at least 5 other schools in it,so it follows that many children will not live closest to the school they attend.

Savvy_Sue

silvercar wrote: »

All the schools in my area give priority to siblings. So everyone works on the basis that you get the eldest in and then don't have to worry about the others. In my opinion it is right and sensible that you should be allowed to give all your children the same primary education if that is what you want.

I would keep your eye on that, if it's relevant to you. That used to be the case when my lot were younger, but the schools changed their policies as mine worked their way through.

Round here, and where we moved from, APAs were based less on geography than on getting all children to a school which was averagely far away, if that makes sense. So you have schools North, South, East and West, but twice as many children live close to the West school as to the other 3. You have to draw some odd shapes to ensure that no-one's travelling TOO far, but that means some children will therefore live closer to the West school than the school whose APA they live in.

And then the local snobby politics kicks in: the North school is closest to a run down council estate and a fairly well-heeled part of town, but rather than mixing that lot in one school, you bus children from the well-heeled area to the South school by drawing a long thin APA around the North school which excludes the well-heeled area.

Or, you realise you have a shortage of secondary school places because historically parents have preferred to go out of county or private to avoid the dire state of local schools. So you build a new North East school, BUT you draw your new APAs so that the North school now serves a fairly logical area, BUT some parents who expected to be living in the APA for the new school find they don't, and they're not happy.

And I wish I were making this up!

poet123

I agree with Sue,actually I thought the sibling criteria had largely died out to standardise admission criteria. So it may be worth checking if you have younger children.

Mumstheword

poet123 wrote: »

What you pay for in selective fee paying schools are smaller class sizes and probably better sporting facilities. If you are happy to have your child educated in the state system why pay for education? Selective schools do not mean your child is any more academically gifted than most other children simply that you have chosen to have your child tested for selection. There are many talented and gifted kids within the state sector,their parents may either not have the funds to pay for schooling or be against private education for other reasons. If you choose private education then you will have to pay for it.

I agree, but if you choose to have a faith based education in a school which is allowed to select on those grounds, then why should that be free when others have to pay for selective ed?

poet123

Because even though you could argue it is a form of selection, in practice the number of non faith children faith schools admit is considerable.
"

How many children do fee paying schools admit free of charge?


and what percentage of children are educated in faith schools as opposed to fee paying?.....a vastly greater number I would assume. Therefore you would be penalising the majority for a minority interest. Also selection on the basis of perceived academic ability is different from selection on the basis of actual faith. Especially when the testing is done at a young age,many so called gifted 10 yr olds do not achieve the same results as others who simply mature later.

I was around when Grammar school selection was the norm. I went to a highly selective Grammar. My husband failed his 11+ but he has achieved far more academically than I did, and now holds 3 degrees to my one. This is a familiar story so academic selection is a choice and choices have financial consequences attached.

Faith school" covers a wide range of kids anyway,you would need to be of an obscure religion or agnostic not to be eligible for some type of faith school in the UK. Therefore I would say that most kids would actually fall into the catchment area of some type of faith school so looked at in that light they are not particularly selective.

thanksalot

Gingham_Ribbon wrote: »

The OP said that her catchment school is not the one nearest her house. She currently takes her child to her NEAREST school. Another reason i think the way this is worked out is so wrong.

Sometimes there is no other way to sort it.
She didn't say that she lived nearer to the school than any other child who is in catchment for the school she wants her children to go to.

Mumstheword

poet123 wrote: »

Because even though you could argue it is a form of selection, in practice the number of non faith children faith schools admit is considerable.
"

do you know the figures involved?

How many children do fee paying schools admit free of charge?

i dont know, it would depend on the bursary scheme that particular school has

and what percentage of children are educated in faith schools as opposed to fee paying?.....a vastly greater number I would assume. Therefore you would be penalising the majority for a minority interest.

Again, I dont know the figures. Perhaps you could find them? I'm not really suggesting penalising the majority, ,more allowing the 'minority' the same free ed as the 'majority'

Also selection on the basis of perceived academic ability is different from selection on the basis of actual faith. Especially when the testing is done at a young age,many so called gifted 10 yr olds do not achieve the same results as others who simply mature later.

Actual faith? These 10 year olds have chosen that faith for themselves?? The grammar system can be shown to work though. I dont have facts and figures, but from the last set of GCSE results it was shown that both the grammars and the comps in our neighbouring borough did very well in comparison to even the top performing comp in this borough. There is no demographic reason for this, each borough has it's good and bad spots, which would suggest that the success was achieved at least partly by educating kids with others of similar ability

I was around when Grammar school selection was the norm. I went to a highly selective Grammar. My husband failed his 11+ but he has achieved far more academically than I did, and now holds 3 degrees to my one. This is a familiar story

How familiar? Are you suggesting that on the whole comps get better results than grammars?There will always be exceptions to the general trend

so academic selection is a choice and choices have financial consequences attached.

...but selection on the grounds of faith is not a choice?:)

Faith school" covers a wide range of kids anyway,you would need to be of an obscure religion or agnostic not to be eligible for some type of faith school in the UK. Therefore I would say that most kids would actually fall into the catchment area of some type of faith school so looked at in that light they are not particularly selective.

Again, I'd be interested in actual figures showing how many pupils faith schools admit from a different faith:)

My issue is quite simple: Faith schools, as far as I am aware (but am willing to stand corrected if you can show me proof otherwise:)) are largely funded by the state. Yet they are allowed to select their pupils. This means that if I want my kids to go there, they are at a severe disadvantage compared to those within that faith. I dont see how that can be fair. Any other school selecting their pupils has to be self funding. If they are state funded, they should be open to all on a fair basis, like other comp schools.:)

If one school can select and be free, all should be able to select and be free.

You are entitled to your opinion on this, as am I:) but if you want a chance of me thinking your views are right, I'll need some evidence to back up your points:)

poet123

All schools could select and be free....the fact that a school is not free is not to do with selection but the people who make money from education as a business. Grammar schools are free in some areas of the country, they are state schools,who employ selection.

It is the parent who chooses a fee paying school on behalf of a child,so how is that different to a parent choosing a faith for a child of the same age?. If you are a practising memberof a particular community/faith then it is an actual faith choice,made by a parent as a parent would make any other decision relating to a minor. Even if you do not practice but believe in the mission statement of a school,then you are entitled to make that choice.

I am not sure how many children from other faiths/or none are admitted to faith schools,but would bet it is far more than get free places in fee paying schools. Figures would be dificult to source as it would change year on year dependent upon criteria of applications and mandatory changes to those criteria.

You have not produced any proof to answer my contention that most kids would fall into some category which would gain them admission to one or other faith schools. If you consider how many C of E,RC, Jewish,muslim schools there are you would have to agree that was true.

Do you not fall into any of these categories? many of the above do not insist you provide proof of practice of the faith in question,merely that you support the underlying ethos of the school.

If you do fall into one of these categories ( as I believe the majority of families would)but still choose to pay for private education, then really you have no axe to grind.

Mumstheword

Crikey!!

This is going round in circles. I've told you my basic stance...lets have the same rule for all. If some are allowed to select, then let all select.

If some can select and still receive funding, then let all select and still receive funding.

Whether or not I fall into one of your categories is irrelevant to my point.

You have suggested that faith schools will accept kids from other faiths. I just asked for info to back that up...I dont have to prove otherwise as it was your point.

And just for the record, you can read 'my' choice as 'my son's' choice of school. He had the option of 4 schools and made his choice. I admire his choice and it was well thought out.

I think you have a bee in your bonnet about fee paying grammar schools. You have shown this in comments about grammar kids being no more intelligent than others, and it merely being a case of some parents opting to have their kids tested in that way. My issue is nothing to do with who is or isnt academically brighter, it's to do with a fair playing field for all. Why should some selective schools get govnt funding and others not?

I think you understand my issue full well, but choose to argue a different point.:)

poet123

You are missing the point deliberately,if you fall into a category which would mean your child would be eligible for a faith school but CHOOSE not to send him there,that is your choice and you cannot therefore complain about how such schools are funded because you had the option of availing yourself of the funding but decided against it.

I know that kids other than of the faith are accepted in faith schools because I am a Governor in such a school. I can say in our case approx 20% are children not belonging to the faith,and probably 70% who do not practice regularly. I cannot speak for other schools but would bet the picture is very similar elsewhere,the make up of faith schools is changing as the make up of the UK changes.

I have no issue at all with fee paying Grammar schools,they are very good at what they do. a couple of my own kids attended Bolton School ( a fee paying school)and did very well,that was our choice and we didnt expect the state to fund that. That didn't make me feel that they were in any way brighter than their contempories who remained in state funded schools.

They attended state (faith )primary schools and we had no problem with the way that was funded either.

So yes,I do know where you are coming from.....(interesting that you say your son made a choice of school but question whether a child in a faith school could make that same choice!!)....a choice was made but you perhaps struggle to fund that choice, so you think everything should be done to help you pay for that choice,that is not the real world.

If you choose to go private(as we did)pay for it and accept that that is the best route for your child.

My youngest child is entering secondary education in September,he has chosen not to go private but to attend the local state(faith)school. We are happy with his choice,(as another of our kids went there and did as well as the ones who went privately) but would have paid if he had wanted to go private.

So you have certainly got mw completely wrong by saying I have a bee in my bonnet about fee paying grammars!!!!:rotfl: I was just trying to illustrate the point that either selection,fee paying or grammars do not necessarily mean your child is bright(er) than average,just that they can pass an exam on a given day.

So the bottom line is that if you decide to educate your child privately( like we did) you pay for that choice. if you have to make sacrifices to do so then you accept that (as we did)and you do not indulge in funding envy of schools you have ruled out as unsuitable for your child.

That is the real world I am afraid...there are loads of other examples of similar issues

For example,we have private health care,should we pay into the NHS when we dont use it? Of course we should,and on and on.