Go to navigation
It is currently Fri Dec 09, 2016 7:17 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:57 am 
I see that Brighton and Hove will be the first LEA to allocate school places by lottery rather than the usual distance from school gates etc.

I wonder how long it will be before the other regions follow suit? It would certainly make transfer appeals less likely, as only luck would play a part.

How do others feel about oversubscribed grammars allocating by lottery?

I feel it is yet another example of blindly following the USA example:

When we lived over there all the specialist schools (including the risible "Gifted and Talented " magnet schools) allocated places by lottery with no element of selection whatever with the laughable result that our local "gifted and talented" school was actually one of the worst-performing high schools in the area!!


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Allocation by lottery
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:28 am 
This crazy notion is indeed here:

TELEGRAPH
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ool328.xml

BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6403017.stm


How long before they introduce this concept to other areas of life, like hospital waiting lists?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:34 am 
I thought that the lottery required balls, but the education minister has none?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:30 am
Posts: 384
Location: Harrow
For non selective school I think its a good idea... but thats probably because we have zero chance currently (unless we move) of getting into the better high school as it is the further away of two nearby high schools and over subscribed.

Steve


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:51 am
Posts: 8116
I suspect that the uncomfortable feeling that it induces in many is that if there is a lottery for schools place (say for EVERY school) it would take away any control and parents ability to do ANYTHING to help their child - eg find out about exams / help the child with prerparation - take up opportunities of muscial ability etc etc.
the only thing left in their power to take back control over the school they get would be to pay.....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 2:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:55 am
Posts: 198
I know one very popular girls comp in Fulham is considering offering some places by lottery. Currently about 50 places go to C of E applicants and the remaining 40 to everyone else. At the moment they have a "selective" procedure in as much as they ask for detailed references from the school, a letter from the parents and from the child herself. However most places are won or lost on travelling distance from the school as judged by the transport for london website.

While I hate the idea of a lottery it is possibly fairer than at present where people with lots of money are able to buy near to the school. Might also discourage the known practise of renting flats in the catchment area to fabricate a local address. Area borders on Chelsea and does not come cheap!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 3:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 10:04 am
Posts: 144
I don't like it. but I can appreciate both sides of the argument. However, I do think that it would potentially ruin grammar schools if entry was by lottery and not by merit (despite the flaws in the 11+system) and don't think it would work at all. Also I think whatever school it is you've really got to keep the sibling rule, so that siblings are automatically offered a place where selection tests are not used, or given priority when they are and a sib is in borderzone.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 4:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 10:30 pm
Posts: 960
I think it's a brilliant idea - if siblings are allowed places, then it's the fairest way. It was interesting listening to paretns on the radio today bending themselves into strange contortions to avoid saying that the real reason they are opposed to the idea is that their houses will instantly lose 20,000 in value!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:50 pm 
Bo Peep wrote:
Also I think whatever school it is you've really got to keep the sibling rule, so that siblings are automatically offered a place where selection tests are not used, or given priority when they are and a sib is in borderzone.


Bo Peep, no problem with your wish, it seems that Brighton and hove are singing from the same song sheet as yourself. :)

Are there any exceptions?

If your child has SEN or already has a sibling at that school you will have overall priority for a place.

Brighton says under the code pupils who have brothers or sisters at the school they are trying to get into, or have special educational needs still have overall priority regardless of where they live.

Not sure what my view is... it seems that no matter what system is introduced their will always be a negative... it seems to me that investing in the future of all schools, bringing them up to the level of teaching of all children regardless of their needs, would be an amazing start... <sighs>

I also worry that Brighton and Hove just manage to give the, 'Against 11+ band' more ammunition, thus fuelling their fight. I give it two days before they start waving their banners yet again. :(


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:11 pm
Posts: 37
Location: Bournemouth
My heart sank when I heard the news this morning. I'm already jittery about the school allocation results on Friday and this has made me realise that my worries will not be over as I am now worried about my younger child as there could be a change in admissions code for the local schools. Grammar schools will still select by ability, religious schools can still select by religion so you're okay if you get into those schools but for the majority of children , getting a place at a secondary or comprehensive school will be more precarious under the lottery system.

I think that locality is very important, and I've applied for 3 schools that are all nearby and accessible by school or public transport, one selective and two non-selective. The thought that my child could be randomly allocated a place at a school the other side of town that I did not want fills me with dread. Like a previous post said, it's the taking away of any possible control over the situation. The situation is not perfect now, but at least I know where I stand.

I am also concerned over the banding aspect of the admissions code, although that hasn't been the subject of news today. I wonder if this could disadvantage your child if they were at a higher band, if there were lots of children at your junior school also in a higher band - again your child could be sent to an underperforming school further away to boost the numbers of the top bands. The idea of locality seems to have gone out of the window.

This is bringing out all sorts of protective instincts in me which may sound selfish but we all want the best for our child. So the real issue is that there are not enough "good" schools around. How come it has got to this? It's been 10 years now of a Labour govt and I had such high hopes when they came to power.

I heard an interesting comment on the radio - someone suggested that instead of the pupils being randomly allocated to different schools, the teachers should be shuffled around.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
CALL 020 8204 5060
   
Privacy Policy | Refund Policy | Disclaimer | Copyright © 2004 – 2016