Charter vs Private school

[emro]

brezzo

I agree it is difficult to directly compare private schools academic results data with state schools results as the private schools do not publish value added data.

But I think you are wrong to say comparing the data from the gifted and talented group at charter to the whole year group for the independent schools in this area is skewiff. If anything it is more likely to be the other way round as the independent schools are selecting a small group on a mainly academic basis from an area comprising at least the whole of South London if not further ( See TImes report in Feb saying this year Dulwich College took 17% of those who applied and kids are travelling from up to 90 minutes away!) Plus of course this is a self selecting group who apply and are more likely than not to be academically above average.

The gifted and talented group is about 10% of the year group at Charter , and of course the Charter is selecting not by academic ability but by those live nearest.

[landsberger]

If the sibling rule goes, will that inconvenience other people? People just look at their own position and don't consider what hardship it would cause. One of the other suggestions has been to put a limit on sibling distance - say 1 mile - to counter people moving into the area for 6 months to get all the kids in the family into a particular school.

[Soulking]

why stop with removing the sibling rule? Why not make every child reapply for their place every year?

Any set of "rules" you come up with can be taken advantage of. If there is any distance based criteria then it will advantage those who have the means or have the inclination to move house to improve their chances. When you try and put your finger on it - its difficult to explain why its unfair (at least it is for me). Why does that make them scumbags? If you think its wrong - change the rules.

[DuncanW]

Re: the sibling rule, this is just a thought that comes to mind, but what about invalidating it if a family move address? Stay put and you get your sibling place even if the catchment changes, but if you move all bets are off.

[newboots]

"If you think its wrong - change the rules."

Well it would be nice to wave a magic wand like that, can't realistically seeing it happening though.

Are you saying that you can't see anything wrong with moving in to catchment temporarily to get a place for all of your children even if you have no intention of staying there?

[fortified]

I always think the 'catchment' thing should mean 'within a catchment, but not proximity priority'. That would stop some of the silliness, because you couldn't be guaranteed a place by plonking yourselves down in a house on the school's doorstep.

[Otta]

DuncanW Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Otta - I think that's a bit harsh!

>

> It's by no means a new thing that people move into

> certain locales to be in catchment areas for

> favoured schools.

There is a difference between moving to an area for the schools and making your life there, and cynically moving temporarily to get a school place. It's inexcusable in my opinion.

[david_carnell]

Make it a lottery.

Names go into a hat. School no 1 - pull name out. School no 2 - pull name out. And so on and so on until all schools are full and all pupils have a school. You do within a "reasonable" distance so people aren't having to cross the whole borough but otherwise it's the only fair way.

I think Brighton did it a while back - I'd be interested to know the outcome.

[EDmummy]

Also done to some extend at Kingsdale. All ways have their critics as people tend to criticise if they fall outside whatever criteria is chosen.

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Make it a lottery.

>

> Names go into a hat. School no 1 - pull name out.

> School no 2 - pull name out. And so on and so on

> until all schools are full and all pupils have a

> school. You do within a "reasonable" distance so

> people aren't having to cross the whole borough

> but otherwise it's the only fair way.

>

> I think Brighton did it a while back - I'd be

> interested to know the outcome.

[monniemae]

Suggesting people lose the sibling priority if they move is a tad unfair, say, on renters who often have no choice about moving. There are a myriad of reasons a homeowner might move too: divorce, job loss etc.

[landsberger]

The greatest supporters of abolishing the sibling tend to be...parents of children without appropriate siblings. And vice-versa. It's a real pity that people can't put themselves in someone else's shoes and consider the pros and cons of a policy that may have ramifications outside their immediate personal concerns.

Bacons and Kingsdale do a lottery and Harris Girls are proposing to do so. When they introduced it in Brighton, there was widespread dismay as middle class parents who had bought a house right next to St Annes of the Sacred Heart C of E Primary School for Nice Young Things (and no kids from the Council Estate up the road) JMI didn't get in, but someone a mile away with a widescreen telly dressed in a tracksuit did. I may be exaggerating for effect.

So Brighton Council withdrew it, and Gove forbade it for LAs (but not for individual schools).

[chuff]

I have wondered about the lottery system. How does it work? who pulls the names out of the hat?

Surely it could enable a school to choose the more academic pupils that have applied all under the luck of the draw?

Hopefully the new school will make it so much easier for everyone in coming years, 240 extra places a year has got to be a good thing.

[david_carnell]

No-one would literally do the draw - a computer program would do so. It would vary around the country according to geography.

Here in SE London, say you lived on Goose Green Roundabout (for eg) then secondary schools in Peckham, ED, New Cross, Forest Hill and Dulwich Village/Herne Hill would all be a reasonable distance. If you lived, say, at the southern boudary with Lewisham then you could extend the catchment area across borough lines but would discount stuff in the north of Southwark i.e. Borough, Bermondsey etc.

There is no need for academic criteria to even be entered. You simply go to the school you are selected for. Within three years the mix of every school would be completely diverse across socio-economic and academic lines that no one school would have any advantage over another. Teachers could get on with teaching rather than panicking about minor league table increases and parents could focus on more important things than measuring maps with compass points to determine crow-flies distances to school entrances.

[newboots]

The Kingsdale lottery is a law unto itself around here though. Very frustrating for families who live nearby.

"The greatest supporters of abolishing the sibling tend to be...parents of children without appropriate siblings." I think I don't agree with that at all, whatever "appropriate siblings" might be!

[chuff]

Maybe I'm an old cynic but I feel that it's an easier way to cherry pick students and boost results.

Of the secondary schools we applied for with our eldest son, Kingsdale and Harris Boys asked them to sit a test before we were offered a place and I think Charter after we had been offered. If they sit them before the lottery is drawn then they have a good idea of their academic level. I'm just saying I wouldn't trust it but yes, if you are right and everything is transparent and above board then it's a great idea!

[newboots]

I think I read on another thread that 120 places went to siblings at Kingsdale this year. If that is true and typical then the lottery places go to only a tiny number of applicants.

[chuff]

Plus don't Kingsdale offer music scholarship places too?

[newboots]

Yes and sports.

[landsberger]

You have to ask yourself why Kingsdale offer so few places to Southwark residents. And yes, they do cherry pick students, and pretend not to, and then exclaim how good they are and what fantastic results they get...their lottery is supposed to be independent, but as far as I know, it's done by the school itself. Draw from that the conclusions you wish to...

>I have wondered about the lottery system. How does it work? who pulls the names out of the hat?

Yes, some schools literally do just that

>Surely it could enable a school to choose the more academic pupils that have applied all under the luck of the >draw?

What are you implying ;-) ? Happens ALL the time. COLA have admitted as much, and Bacons are suspected of doing this.

>240 extra places a year has got to be a good thing.

That's just a start. At least another 240 (and probably 300) are needed to meet demand, so there'll be another school opening somewhere soon.

david_carnell's proposal is sensible and sounds like the old "catchment area" model. Proper catchment area, not the catchment area as most people understand it these days. The sad thing is that hysterical parents demand 'the best' for their child, they do not want their child educating with low achievers/E2Lers/BME people, or people (gasp) from a different social group. So they will go to inordinate lengths - under the name of "doing the best for their child" - to effect this.

What I meant by ""The greatest supporters of abolishing the sibling tend to be...parents of children without appropriate siblings" was that the greatest supporters of abolishing the sibling rule tend to be people who would not benefit from it, as they have only 1 child, or too great an age difference for the rule to apply.

[confusedbyitall]

Landsberger please get your facts correct.

Info on Bacons -

The area served by the college is divided into an inner and an outer catchment area. 135 (75%) of the available places will be allocated to applicants living in the inner area and 45 (25%) to applicants living in the outer area.

In order to ensure that the intake to the college represents the full range of ability, the College will use pupil banding as part of its admissions arrangements if the college is oversubscribed. Banding will be applied separately to both the inner and outer catchment areas and the same test will be used to assess a pupil's ability. Other than to determine the ability band into which a pupil will be placed, the assessment of a pupil?s ability plays no other part in the admission arrangements for Bacon?s College.

http://www.baconscollege.co.uk/admissions/admission-policy.aspx

[david_carnell]

landsberger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The sad thing is that hysterical parents demand 'the best' for

> their child, they do not want their child

> educating with low achievers/E2Lers/BME people, or

> people (gasp) from a different social group. So

> they will go to inordinate lengths - under the

> name of "doing the best for their child" - to

> effect this.

^THIS x 100

[monniemae]

Totally agree.

[northdulmum]

I think that's right to an extent for a lot of people. But don't forget, class sizes and sports facilities are the major drivers of difference btw state and private (for me anyway).

From speaking to other mums, I'd say 20% are for 'landsberger theory'. The rest for smaller classes and sports, music etc etc.

If Charter had 15 pupils in each class (room - not social group!) and JAGS sport facilities, the catchment would be zero. So it's not just a social thing.

[canela]

We had the lottery experience in Brighton, and tbh it was very frustrating. We had 3 schools nearby but got allocated a school a good hour's walk away, or 30 minutes on a packed bus, or 15 minutes in the car. Before I went back to work we used to walk there, and pass loads of parents walking in the other direction to the school just down the road from us. None of my son's friends lived anywhere near us, which meant less hooking up after school, and also less school gate socialising as everyone has to rush to get home. Once I started work again we obviously had to go in the car, which meant being another family clogging up the roads which were gridlock at that time.

I found it very disappointing as the school had no real parents activities or support and I think one reason was because it was not embedded in the local community. Everyone came from somewhere else.

To top it off, our lottery ticket meant we got allocated what was known as the worst school in Brighton. No real idea why, but someone has to be I suppose. I really think that had this school been more connected to the local community and to parents it would have made a real difference to the feel of it.

[david_carnell]

An interesting insight, Canela - was that primary or secondary level?

I suspect your situation was exacerabted by Brighton's geography which doesn't lend itself to covering even short distances particularly easily.

In zone 2 though, that's not really the case. In the scenario envisaged above, all of those schools are walkable in about 30mins. That seems reasonable enough.