Parents that are lying about their address

[Amber]

RomfordDad - is that really what you want for your child? If so then I think you are on your own on that one ...

No, I don't - but it is quite good to show the contrast between schooling here and other places in the world. I'd think there is a sweetspot somewhere in between - like the South Korean boy mentioned at the end of the programme.

I have neither read the article nor seen the programme but I do spend my days studying education in other parts of the world. No one with any knowledge of Korean education would assume that performance on a GCSE paper told you much about schooling: it tells you more about the society and the emphasis put on education - most Korean children will be putting in many hours after school. You might also ask yourself 'so what?' to the fact they can do this maths so quickly. The lack of creative thought in many East Asian students is now being recognised as a problem by their own governments who are, ironically, starting to look west for ideas on how to stop them being so formulaic in their thinking.

If you want to look at superselective schools without catchment areas, come to Gloucestershire and see how few very local children actually make it to the 'top' grammar schools we have here. One in particular probably has no more than half a dozen children from the streets within half a mile of it.

[mystery]

One idea for schools that would definitely stop parents lying about their address - remove the catchment areas!

I don't really get this notion of "catchment" areas - which are really priority areas in the even of oversubscription rather than catchment areas as such anyhow - it's perfectly possible for all schools to operate withhout them and give priority on distnce to home address (for a non-selective).

Round here, schools over the county border, but which are very close for us as opposed to within county schools which are a long way away, mess around with their oversubscription maps every year and they always like to somehow make it harder if they can to get in from the towns that they consider have undesirables living in them, or come up with areas where the county border is the boundary but get round this by saying it's a natural feature such as a river or some other reason why the boundary is on the county border.

It might make predicting whether or not you would get a place at particular school a bit easier if "catchment areas" were outlawed in admissions policies but I don't think it would stop lying. Because if it was done on distance it would still be preferable to have a home address which was near a very good school --- so there's always going to be this temptation for parents who don't mind lying.

[tiffinboys]

If you want to look at superselective schools without catchment areas, come to Gloucestershire and see how few very local children actually make it to the 'top' grammar schools we have here. One in particular probably has no more than half a dozen children from the streets within half a mile of it.

Same problem here. That's when I got going for some preference for local children. Tiffin responded by narrowing their admission area to 14 km radius. Still no solution for local children.

[mystery]

No - but it's a contradiction in terms to have a school that is "superselective" but then give some priority to children who live within a certain distance - and the smaller the distance you make it the lower the score they need to get in.

So where you have a selective school "in splendid isolation" what's the way forward? Have a rule that anyone who falls into the top 25% of the population as a whole by some kind of IQ measure is eligible for a place and then do it by distance of home address? If the admissions code allows that? Is that any fairer? A brighter kid whose parents can't afford to live close enough to the school won't get a place.

Much as we might not like it, I think we have to accept that schools are national assets and, for the most part, parents are going to put a life together for their kids that works.

I don't come across many teachers at my children's school that understand that children need lives outside school, breaktimes, lunchtimes, etc --- so it's refreshing to hear teachers on here who teach at schools where this clearly matters to them.

But, being a cynical old soul, I'd say that the parents who aren't turning up because "it's too far" might not turn up wherever the school was. And the location of a school close to one's home address does not solve the problem necessarily anyhow if you work a long way from home - which is quite typical in commuter belt like Kent, Surrey, Bucks.

I don't think that schools can hope to solve children's home lives through their admissions policies. And clearly the very existence of selective schools only makes the situation worse as not everyone can have a school for 25% and a school for 75% on their doorsteps - it's even harder than providing a school for 100% on everyone's doorsteps.

[tiffinboys]

No - but it's a contradiction in terms to have a school that is "superselective" but then give some priority to children who live within a certain distance - and the smaller the distance you make it the lower the score they need to get in.

There is no official classification of schools as 'super-selective'.
No, in our area parents have not chosen our local schools to be super-selective.

[Tinkers]

When kendrick introduced a catchment in 2013, the number of applicants went up, as did the cut off score.
The year before, all girls who qualified eventually got a place if they wanted one.

[mystery]

Interesting. That is counter-intuitive but I can see that happening too. There must have been people who did not want to accidentally waste a space on it in the past who decided it was worth the risk of putting it down when they introduced some kind of local priority.

Cut-offs came down at Judd when they introduced priority to children who live in West Kent. But a school with a seriously high cut - off is unlikely to raise its cut off by introducing a preference for the locals. There just can't be that many children in the top x% of the population living close to a school ......... but again, I suppose it depends on the area. In a more densely populated area than Kent it could be a remote possibility.

Sorry I don't know the schools concerned. Tiffin Boys - no, you didn't get to vote on the school taking children based on score only. But there's two ways of looking at everything and neither did the people who live a bit too far away vote that a lower scoring child who lives nearer the school should get a place.

All very tricky. At the then of the day, no-one's happy when their child can't get a place at the school they would prefer but it's impossible to give everyone a real and meaningful choice.

[Reading Mum]

There just can't be that many children in the top x% of the population living close to a school ......... but again, I suppose it depends on the area. In a more densely populated area than Kent it could be a remote possibility.

Kendrick is in Reading - fairly densely populated - and only takes 96 girls so there shouldn't be any trouble getting local girls who would make the grade.

[RomfordDad]

If you want to look at superselective schools without catchment areas, come to Gloucestershire and see how few very local children actually make it to the 'top' grammar schools we have here. One in particular probably has no more than half a dozen children from the streets within half a mile of it.

Same problem here. That's when I got going for some preference for local children. Tiffin responded by narrowing their admission area to 14 km radius. Still no solution for local children.

You mean there is no other non-selective local school they can get in?

[RomfordDad]

Leave it up to the parents to decide what hideous commute their child can do? The parents decide but it's the poor child that actually has to do it, right?

Yes.

It has only had a catchment for a couple of years. the reason being the boys were doing ridiculous commutes, they were tired, they were unable to participate in school clubs, concerts, sports matches etc.

You forgot sleepovers in your list.

If you are so determined that your child should go to a particular school, then move nearer to it

Why hadn't I thought about that before?
I'd, and that is clearly the best solution, but unfortunately it's not that easy.

Seem to me like people here are suggesting that parents don't even care about their own children, make them travel long distances to better school just because of the prestige or whatever, while they themselves enjoy a job with minimal commute, drinks with local friends after job etc.