The end of the catchment area?
Discussion
I have mixed feelings about this
On the one hand it is surely right that bright children from poor areas should have access to better schools.
However I suspect this policy will not achive this, but rather create an equality of misery as the standards of the good state schools are reduced.
Furthermore is it right that a child living right next to a school will not be able to attend that school and will instead have to travel miles?.
As a side note this quote is hilarious
"..Middle class parents have nothing to fear, he said, because a greater social mixture of pupils will improve schools and give them more from which to choose"
Poor children may be bused to school in wealthy areas
By Liz Lightfoot, Education Correspondent
(Filed: 18/10/2005)
Free bus travel for children from council estates will be announced next week as part of the Government's effort to end the middle class stranglehold on popular schools.
"Choice advisers" will tell parents about schools outside their areas to which they can apply and help them through the admissions process.
Groups of schools will be allowed to test children and put them into ability bands, sharing out the most and least able so that their intakes reflect the profile of the local authority or national area.
Although the "fair banding" system will not be compulsory, the Government will strongly encourage schools to adopt it to end the so-called admission by postcode lottery, which rewards those families that can afford to move closest to schools with the best reputation. Research has shown that schools in middle class areas have a higher proportion of top band children.
Critics of banding say it is the antithesis of parental choice because a child living next door to a school could miss out on a place and end up being taken by bus to one farther away if too many pupils of the same ability lived in their area.
Ministers will argue that some city technology colleges and academies successfully use a "doughnut" system of banding. That gives more places in each band to children living near the schools but sets aside a proportion for those outside the geographical catchment area.
Ruth Kelly, the Education Secretary, told a conference in London yesterday that she was working on "how we can get families living on council estates to exercise their choice in as powerful a way as those from more privileged backgrounds".
She argues that parental choice has been concentrated in the hands of middle class families. She told the Labour Party conference last month that all parents should be able to choose the school that was right for their child.
"For too long, access to some schools was open only to those who could afford to buy an expensive house next to a good school, while the rest were told to accept what they were given," she said. "There was nothing fair about that approach."
Measures in the School Transport Bill, which failed to become law in the last parliamentary session from lack of time, will be revived. The Bill allows councils to charge parents for transport on a means-tested basis, introducing yellow bus-style services similar to those in America.
But Miss Kelly is likely to scrap the clause which would have allowed councils to charge poorer families if they had rejected a nearby school in favour of one farther away.
The proposals form part of Tony Blair's campaign to increase social mobility and bring fairness to public services. They demonstrate his frustration at his Government's inability to raise school standards in some of the toughest areas.
About 300 of 3,000 secondary schools already band children, usually according to a non-verbal reasoning test. But the present law on admissions says that the percentage of children allocated to each band must reflect the profile of applicants.
Sir Cyril Taylor, a Government adviser and chairman of the specialist schools and academies trust, believes that the present system leads to distortions because schools continue to reflect their local areas rather than the wider profile of abilities.
Middle class parents have nothing to fear, he said, because a greater social mixture of pupils will improve schools and give them more from which to choose. It would end the unfairness of narrow, shrinking catchment areas which deprive parents living just outside of any choice.
Sir Cyril said: "It is not some kind of social diktat or American-style enforced de-segregation but groups of schools working together and children travelling on yellow buses instead of parents having to drive them all over the place, polluting the atmosphere."
Middle class parents could also benefit from the greater choice and mobility because good schools in poor areas, such as Government's flagship academies, would be open to them, he said.
16 October 2005: Banding will restrict parent choice, warns Labour's favourite head
On the one hand it is surely right that bright children from poor areas should have access to better schools.
However I suspect this policy will not achive this, but rather create an equality of misery as the standards of the good state schools are reduced.
Furthermore is it right that a child living right next to a school will not be able to attend that school and will instead have to travel miles?.
As a side note this quote is hilarious
"..Middle class parents have nothing to fear, he said, because a greater social mixture of pupils will improve schools and give them more from which to choose"
Poor children may be bused to school in wealthy areas
By Liz Lightfoot, Education Correspondent
(Filed: 18/10/2005)
Free bus travel for children from council estates will be announced next week as part of the Government's effort to end the middle class stranglehold on popular schools.
"Choice advisers" will tell parents about schools outside their areas to which they can apply and help them through the admissions process.
Groups of schools will be allowed to test children and put them into ability bands, sharing out the most and least able so that their intakes reflect the profile of the local authority or national area.
Although the "fair banding" system will not be compulsory, the Government will strongly encourage schools to adopt it to end the so-called admission by postcode lottery, which rewards those families that can afford to move closest to schools with the best reputation. Research has shown that schools in middle class areas have a higher proportion of top band children.
Critics of banding say it is the antithesis of parental choice because a child living next door to a school could miss out on a place and end up being taken by bus to one farther away if too many pupils of the same ability lived in their area.
Ministers will argue that some city technology colleges and academies successfully use a "doughnut" system of banding. That gives more places in each band to children living near the schools but sets aside a proportion for those outside the geographical catchment area.
Ruth Kelly, the Education Secretary, told a conference in London yesterday that she was working on "how we can get families living on council estates to exercise their choice in as powerful a way as those from more privileged backgrounds".
She argues that parental choice has been concentrated in the hands of middle class families. She told the Labour Party conference last month that all parents should be able to choose the school that was right for their child.
"For too long, access to some schools was open only to those who could afford to buy an expensive house next to a good school, while the rest were told to accept what they were given," she said. "There was nothing fair about that approach."
Measures in the School Transport Bill, which failed to become law in the last parliamentary session from lack of time, will be revived. The Bill allows councils to charge parents for transport on a means-tested basis, introducing yellow bus-style services similar to those in America.
But Miss Kelly is likely to scrap the clause which would have allowed councils to charge poorer families if they had rejected a nearby school in favour of one farther away.
The proposals form part of Tony Blair's campaign to increase social mobility and bring fairness to public services. They demonstrate his frustration at his Government's inability to raise school standards in some of the toughest areas.
About 300 of 3,000 secondary schools already band children, usually according to a non-verbal reasoning test. But the present law on admissions says that the percentage of children allocated to each band must reflect the profile of applicants.
Sir Cyril Taylor, a Government adviser and chairman of the specialist schools and academies trust, believes that the present system leads to distortions because schools continue to reflect their local areas rather than the wider profile of abilities.
Middle class parents have nothing to fear, he said, because a greater social mixture of pupils will improve schools and give them more from which to choose. It would end the unfairness of narrow, shrinking catchment areas which deprive parents living just outside of any choice.
Sir Cyril said: "It is not some kind of social diktat or American-style enforced de-segregation but groups of schools working together and children travelling on yellow buses instead of parents having to drive them all over the place, polluting the atmosphere."
Middle class parents could also benefit from the greater choice and mobility because good schools in poor areas, such as Government's flagship academies, would be open to them, he said.
16 October 2005: Banding will restrict parent choice, warns Labour's favourite head
Children should be made to go to the local school unless they have brothers / sisters at another school (say after a house move). The bad schools will always remain bad unless they get the good kids, and parents won't send the good kids to a bad school (unless they have too). Unfortunately the bad schools now have such a backlog to deal with, it will take schools years to re-address the balance. But it needs to be done. It will also remove congestion with parents driving across towns 5 miles instead of going to the school half a mile away.
A repeat of the process that turned Grammer Schools into Comprehensives. Nice.
Children whose parents are interested in their education get good results, those who are not so fortunate do not unless they go to better than average schools.
Better than average schools are those whose children generally have parents who are interested in their education. Such an interest tends to go hand-in-hand with the parents' own degree of education and thus with their income.
If you make it difficult for such parents to send their children to the best state school they can access then instead they will find a way of educating them privately, to the detriment of the state school system as a whole.
Children whose parents are interested in their education get good results, those who are not so fortunate do not unless they go to better than average schools.
Better than average schools are those whose children generally have parents who are interested in their education. Such an interest tends to go hand-in-hand with the parents' own degree of education and thus with their income.
If you make it difficult for such parents to send their children to the best state school they can access then instead they will find a way of educating them privately, to the detriment of the state school system as a whole.
Nick_F said:
A repeat of the process that turned Grammer Schools into Comprehensives. Nice.
You are right
The more I think about this the more problems I can see.
What the government intends to do is restrict the numbers of those of high ability at the good state schools. So far from being a way for bright poor kids to get a better education, they will be the kids LEAST likely to go to the school in the better area.
What in fact will happen is the mass bussing of band 3 poor children, who are probably still functionally illiterate, to suburban schools. Destroying those schools while providing no benefit to poor children.
What the government should do is target intelligent poor children, say the top 25% and bus them, think of the benefit to them, being educated amongst other children interested in learning.
Some idiot said:
Research has shown that schools in middle class areas have a higher proportion of top band children.
It's because of socialist education policies that we have GRADUATES to whom such an obvious correlation comes as a complete surprise.
Let me see now: clever people get good jobs, which pay better, so clever people tend to earn more and tend to live in middle class areas; clever people pass on their genes to - blimey - their kids, ergo clever kids tend to come from middle class areas.
So obviously we can't let such right wing Darwinian evolutionary pressures victimise the oppressed majority, lets throw the bright kids in the mix so the ASBO bullies can rob their pocket money and bloody their stuck up liitle middle class noses on a daily basis.
Excellent idea, it worked brilliantly in the 70's. I have fond memories of banded education in comprehensives, when the O band* students came out of school every afternoon to a ritual kicking from the rest of the school, en masse. Did me the world of good that, built character.
God preserve us from socialist sandal wearing do-gooders.
*thats the GCE O level students kiddies, ie the top 5% - those who would actually still get straight A's even if you had to do more that spell your name right at the top of your GCSE papers.
>> Edited by victormeldrew on Tuesday 18th October 10:57
All we now need to become as educationally reverse-engineered as the yanks, is to have forced bussing of chavs and pikeys to the "good" schools. We then can all take a 9mm and blow our brains out!
What the
has happened to achievement and elitism???? or have these liberalistic nazis now banned that as well???
What the
has happened to achievement and elitism???? or have these liberalistic nazis now banned that as well???matchless said:
just have an image in my head now of our local independant Grammer Schools full of Burberry cap wearing chavs!, don't really bear thinking about does it?
matchless
Are they chav's by virtue of being poor? What an ignorant ill educated comment (aswell as BlairOuts above, but that appears to be a blatant troll if anything). Kid's can't help being born into poor households, i don't see why they should be discriminated against because of perceived social stereotypes like that.
scorp said:
(aswell as BlairOuts above, but that appears to be a blatant troll if anything)
Moi? Trolling? As if.
But there is a serious issue, what is the point in doing homework, which my kids already get a lot of aged 6 & 7 and encouraging them to excel if they are going to start filling the classroom with the educationally substandard offspring of the dross of society?
A lot of these people aren't poor and ill educated without good reason. By all means award places on educational merit, but I for one don't want my kids school dragging down to meet the lowest common denominator.
And don't even get me started on the school run
scorp said:No, they are chavs by virtue of being stupid, actually. (For explanation, google "Darwin"
just have an image in my head now of our local independant Grammer Schools full of Burberry cap wearing chavs!, don't really bear thinking about does it?
matchless
Are they chav's by virtue of being poor? What an ignorant ill educated comment (aswell as BlairOuts above, but that appears to be a blatant troll if anything). Kid's can't help being born into poor households, i don't see why they should be discriminated against because of perceived social stereotypes like that.
. And no, kids can't help being born into stupid households either. What is discriminatory about giving bright kids the chance to excel? You seem to think the suggestion is simply to allow bright but poor kids the opportunity to go to "better" schools.
Doh! No, its about creating a "level playing field", a nasty socialist term better known as dumbing down to the lowest common denominator to the rest of us.
Every class with its "fair share" of disruptive kids who don't want to be educated, and who resent (and bully) anyone who does. Every class with its high acheivers kickng their heels while the Chav majority abuse the teacher and their classmates. No such thing as a better school, just more worse ones.
These half assed attempts at social engineering just don't work. Another example is with council housing. They used to have "sink estates" where the Chavscum got sent to annoy each other. That was deemed discriminatory, so now the "PC" policy is to integrate these problem families in the community at large. All the estates get their fair share of Chavscum. This is of course meant to elevate the problem families; instead it just means they don't have as far to walk with their stolen DVD players.
Exactly the same principle as being suggested for education, with the inevitable and predictable (for anyone with a grain of common sense) results.
victormeldrew said:
What is discriminatory about giving bright kids the chance to excel? You seem to think the suggestion is simply to allow bright but poor kids the opportunity to go to "better" schools.
Doh! No, its about creating a "level playing field", a nasty socialist term better known as dumbing down to the lowest common denominator to the rest of us.
Your right, rather naive of me to think this is done to provide educational oppurtunity for all, but rather screw up everyone elses so we are all equally poorly educated (a typical socialist solution).
>> Edited by scorp on Tuesday 18th October 11:32
BliarOut said:
(aswell as BlairOuts above, but that appears to be a blatant troll if anything)
Moi? Trolling? As if.
But there is a serious issue, what is the point in doing homework, which my kids already get a lot of aged 6 & 7 and encouraging them to excel if they are going to start filling the classroom with the educationally substandard offspring of the dross of society?
A lot of these people aren't poor and ill educated without good reason. By all means award places on educational merit, but I for one don't want my kids school dragging down to meet the lowest common denominator.
And don't even get me started on the school run
If you want your children to be so far removed from every day people (chavs/etc) then why not go private?
There's no point in complaining about the public at a public school is there?
I would hope local residents get first refusal for places though otherwise it would seem this is yet another punitive policy against the middle classes (yet again).
scorp said:
scorp said:
(aswell as BlairOuts above, but that appears to be a blatant troll if anything)
Moi? Trolling? As if.
But there is a serious issue, what is the point in doing homework, which my kids already get a lot of aged 6 & 7 and encouraging them to excel if they are going to start filling the classroom with the educationally substandard offspring of the dross of society?
A lot of these people aren't poor and ill educated without good reason. By all means award places on educational merit, but I for one don't want my kids school dragging down to meet the lowest common denominator.
And don't even get me started on the school run
If you want your children to be so far removed from every day people (chavs/etc) then why not go private?
There's no point in complaining about the public at a public school is there?
I would hope local residents get first refusal for places though otherwise it would seem this is yet another punitive policy against the middle classes (yet again).
Can't afford it, and I doubt it would be much better than my kids current school TBH. It's the continual attacks on the middle classes that are really starting to get up my nose
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff