Should children go to their local school rather than there being a choice?

[al78]

Or, just spend 20 minutes travelling somewhere that is further away, but easier to get to

Yes you can do that if you want, but if you are choosing to drive further away when you can walk or cycle in the same time to a nearer facility, don't complain about traffic congestion, because that on a population scale is what causes it at least in urban areas.

 

[Mojo]

The present school system isn't "perfectly adequate". In particular it causes a large number of car journeys.

Not convinced about that line of argument given the context. I was just highlighting the point that because somewhere might be geographically close, it might not be close in terms of journey time or ease of access.

This is even more relevant in the context of education when local authority boundaries are taken into consideration. Not so relevant in London but this can still play a part even in the capital.

Yes you can do that if you want, but if you are choosing to drive further away when you can walk or cycle in the same time to a nearer facility, don't complain about traffic congestion, because that on a population scale is what causes it at least in urban areas.

Travelling further being quicker is rarely relevant for cars except in extremely limited cases, and is primarily of concern for public transport users.

 

[PeterC]

I think there is a better arguement for doing this at primary level that at secondary.

 

[ComUtoR]

In particular it causes a large number of car journeys.

Many of which would happen anyway.

 

[PupCuff]

The issue is by forcing people to the school geographically closest, you're removing the ability to choose things such as grammar schools, independent schools or faith schools.
There could be some middle ground where you have to go to the nearest of each, perhaps, so if you wanted a specifically catholic school you could go to the one which isn't the closest school, but it's nearer than another catholic school. Entrance exams/the 11+ could be taken when appropriate, and then you go to the nearest grammar school or nearest comprehensive school?
Really if you want to pay for a private education I don't think there should be a restriction on where that has to be.

It's also worth remembering that sending able kids to a bad school doesn't make the school any better, it either artificially limits the ability of the able kids or goes too fast/pitches education at too advanced a level for those who aren't and brings them down even further.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The issue is by forcing people to the school geographically closest, you're removing the ability to choose things such as grammar schools, independent schools or faith schools.

As I don't support the existence of State faith or selective schools, that doesn't seem a major problem. Independent schools are a different game but are attended by a tiny minority of pupils anyway.

 

[87 027]

I suspect the responses of posters here will depend on whether they have kids of their own and therefore more “skin in the game” (to coin a phrase) than armchair commentators. Just sayin’

 

[87 027]

If the objective here is to prevent unnecessary personal mobility why stop at schools? How about leisure activities such as Scout and Guide groups? Hospitals? GP surgeries? Football grounds: you are only allowed to visit the nearest - e.g. Stockport County (Vanarama) rather than Manchester United (Premiership)? I could go on...

 

[Cowley]

I suspect the responses of posters here will depend on whether they have kids of their own and therefore more “skin in the game” (to coin a phrase) than armchair commentators. Just sayin’

I think you might be right with that assessment.

 

[87 027]

I think you might be right with that assessment.

Theoretical discussions are all very well but we mustn't underestimate the motivation of parents to want to do their best for their kids in the here and now. We need a roadmap, transition plan, architectural runway - whatever you wish to call it - if change is to happen in practice

 

[yorkie]

With a few exceptions, that's essentially how the current system works anyway. As I understand it, although there are no 'catchment areas', priority is given to whoever is closest to the school by drawing a straight line on a map, which in my mid is a 'catchment area'.

I'm not sure what the distance rules are (does anyone know?) but York does have catchment areas; the maps are available online.

Where I live, some of the parents are desperate for their kids to go to one of the religious schools as they are perceived as better. However in reality one of those schools actually has a big bullying problem according to various people I've spoken to (including parents and children), but of course it gets good results and has a rather impressive building, so everyone thinks it's wonderful.

Then there are two regular schools, but one of them supposedly has a better reputation than the other, but the reality (from speaking to staff who have experience of both) is that they are a lot more similar than some people believe. However many parents naturally want their children to attend the school that has more affluent areas in its catchment area, than the school that has more deprived areas in its catchment area. In practise though, having spoken to a dozen kids earlier this year, who did not get their [parents] first choice of school, when I asked them the question, they were all really happy with the school they ended up with and felt they were no worse off than if they had got their first choice. Some of them even thought the opportunities they were given meant that they felt they had possibly a 'better' experience than their friends who went to the other school.

So a lot of the extra travelling to go to supposedly 'better' schools is driven by parents, rather than the children themselves!

...Forcing kids to go to their nearest school makes things worse not better. For schools close to run down estates, council estates, etc., it limits their choice and social mobility. A school with a catchment of "problem" homes is simply never going to succeed. You'd need to rebuild schools in specially selected areas with a decent mix of households for it to work - that's never going to happen.

I think in York there probably aren't any schools that don't have a mix in their catchment areas, so maybe the problem you talk of doesn't exist in York, but some do have more deprived areas than others. You can work it out by comparing Datashine with the catchment area maps on the Council's website.

However you are right that schools with a substantial proportion of deprived areas in its catchment area can almost never be rated as outstanding by Ofsted and it's a struggle for them to be rated Good, but what you will find is that students who do want to succeed who attend such schools generally do well and are not held back, and that they go on to become well rounded, down to earth people.

You'll also find some thoroughly nice kids from deprived areas and there's not many things in life that are more rewarding than seeing them do well (not that there is any opportunity to help them at the moment - but that's another story, and off topic for this thread, so I won't go there! )

 

[87 027]

I'm not sure what the distance rules are

The rules can vary from area to area. There may also be boundary issues to consider - one secondary school I looked at reserves half its places for kids living within its own local authority area, which means in theory you could be close but just the wrong side of that boundary, and so not meet the admission criteria for that reason.

 

[cb a1]

My ex. used to teach in a 'good' school. if we'd still been living in the same city when our son was ready to go to school, she would have never have let him go there. She insisted (and I agreed with her) that he go to our local school which was one of the supposedly poorer performing schools in the city.

'Good' schools can be great if you're really smart, but anything less than that and the school may well do it's damnedest to freeze you out of taking particular subjects or exams because they want to keep their overall results looking good. Didn't matter if its a subject you really enjoy; anything less than a pretty solid guarantee of a pass and you won't be taking it.

The quality of a school isn't measured by how much the kids who go there achieve above their expectation or how happy they are but by how the head teacher ensures that the metrics published are maximised.

 

[bussnapperwm]

My local secondary (literally round the corner) had a drug problem (you'd see the old bill parked up by the nearest corner shop at least once a week with the sniffer dog's) and bad exam results when it came to picking schools for my brother and I. The next nearest (about a mile away as the crow flies) had excellent results but a slight problem with another nearby school (but good SEN staff).

Fortunately I managed to get into the second of the two (especially having Asperger's) and did well. I shudder to think how things would have gone had I attended the local secondary.

 

[al78]

If the objective here is to prevent unnecessary personal mobility why stop at schools? How about leisure activities such as Scout and Guide groups? Hospitals? GP surgeries? Football grounds: you are only allowed to visit the nearest - e.g. Stockport County (Vanarama) rather than Manchester United (Premiership)? I could go on...

It doesn't work with hospitals because some hospitals specialise in specific medical treatment, so someone might have to be transported to a specific hospital to maximise their chance of survival. For example, when I was involved in a road accident, I suffered a severe traumatic head injury and was airlifted to St Georges hospital, not local to me, but it does specialise in neurology. If someone has said I could only use the hospital nearest to me I would be dead. The others aren't a major source of regular traffic congestion, unlike rush hour and school coming and going times where loads of people try to take one car each to a very localised place, so no need to be draconian.

 

[al78]

The issue is by forcing people to the school geographically closest, you're removing the ability to choose things such as grammar schools, independent schools or faith schools.

The issue with forcing people to the closest school is that you create a postcode lottery so that where you live dictates the quality of education available to your child. An inner city school in a deprived area where the scum in training go is not going to provide as good an educational experience as a school in a more prosperous area.

 

[yorkie]

My ex. used to teach in a 'good' school. if we'd still been living in the same city when our son was ready to go to school, she would have never have let him go there. She insisted (and I agreed with her) that he go to our local school which was one of the supposedly poorer performing schools in the city.

'Good' schools can be great if you're really smart, but anything less than that and the school may well do it's damnedest to freeze you out of taking particular subjects or exams because they want to keep their overall results looking good. Didn't matter if its a subject you really enjoy; anything less than a pretty solid guarantee of a pass and you won't be taking it.

The quality of a school isn't measured by how much the kids who go there achieve above their expectation or how happy they are but by how the head teacher ensures that the metrics published are maximised.

Great post. If only more parents realised this!

The issue with forcing people to the closest school is that you create a postcode lottery so that where you live dictates the quality of education available to your child. An inner city school in a deprived area where the scum in training go is not going to provide as good an educational experience as a school in a more prosperous area.

It's already the case that where you live affects the eligibility criteria (ignoring any religions considerations).

 

[Tetchytyke]

The move away from catchment areas was because it reduced social mobility. The good schools were- and are- generally in the rich areas. If you're not rich, you won't be in the catchment area. With the newer allocations policies you can get away from that, at least to an extent. It's still not ideal, but it is better than it was.

 

[yorkie]

The move away from catchment areas was because it reduced social mobility. The good schools were- and are- generally in the rich areas. If you're not rich, you won't be in the catchment area. With the newer allocations policies you can get away from that, at least to an extent. It's still not ideal, but it is better than it was.

Not heard of that. York has catchment areas but most schools have a reasonably healthy mix of deprived and non-deprived areas and I don't think this is a particular problem. That said perhaps a little more could be done in some areas; the likes of Fulford are getting rather big for their boots.

Sweatshirts dropped for blazers - parents slam school uniform changes

PARENTS have hit out after a York secondary school unveiled plans to change its pupils’ uniforms, including replacing sweatshirts with blazers.

www.yorkpress.co.uk

Parents ticked off as blazers replace sweatshirts at school - despite opposition

PARENTS have been ticked off as a York school presses ahead with replacing sweatshirts with blazers in its uniform, despite parental opposition.

www.yorkpress.co.uk

PARENTS have been ticked off as a York school presses ahead with replacing sweatshirts with blazers in its uniform, despite parental opposition.

I won't state my views on Fulford's headteacher and Chair of Governors on this forum; I will leave it up to your imagination

A good example of making catchment areas better, which I approve of, is that I heard that Manor School were unhappy when they expanded because they were forced to expand the area from which they would have to take students from deprived backgrounds in the North West of the city. Technically the area isn't a 'catchment area' and has some fancy name, but the point is that they are forced to even things up a bit, which is good. Schools like that are not going to do so voluntarily, of course!

 

[Tetchytyke]

York has catchment areas but most schools have a reasonably healthy mix of deprived and non-deprived areas and I don't think this is a particular problem.

York is quite a small city, so small tweaks to a catchment area can have a big impact. In bigger cities it was more noticeable, especially where you get significant wealth concentrated in certain areas of the city (think the Alwoodley/Adel belt in Leeds).

School uniforms are a whole different ballgame, and are now the way in which schools attempt to police the wealth of students' families. Want to push the poor kids out? Force them to buy a fifty quid blazer.

Don't even get me started on kickbacks schools receive from their monopoly supplier agreements. I can't believe people haven't done more digging about such blatant corruption.

ETA Getting off topic. To answer the original question, I don't think catchment areas affect car usage. What DOES affect car usage is the fact that most families now have two working parents, who need to get to work. Even a mile's walk takes 15-20 minutes, compared to 2 minutes in a car. Time is why people drive.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The present school system isn't "perfectly adequate". In particular it causes a large number of car journeys.

Genuine question: To what extent are those car journeys caused by the present school system causing children to attend schools further away from where they live, and to what extent is it caused by a culture in which parents are for whatever reason reluctant to allow children to walk/cycle/bus to school?

 

[yorkie]

York is quite a small city, so small tweaks to a catchment area can have a big impact. In bigger cities it was more noticeable, especially where you get significant wealth concentrated in certain areas of the city (think the Alwoodley/Adel belt in Leeds)....

True, and it's not just that, but the most deprived areas are actually well spread out across the city (look for the deep red areas on Datashine); this can be compared with catchment areas.

I'm not sure what you could do about Sheffield which is a city of two halves; see the last link in the opening post in the following thread:

Datashine (the 2011 census, mapped with context)

Some people may find this interesting, and of course many people have spare time on their hands! https://datashine.org.uk The DataShine mapping platform is an output from an ESRC Future Research Leaders Project entitled “Big Open Data: Mining and Synthesis” (BODMAS). The overall project seeks...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[87 027]

Genuine question: To what extent are those car journeys caused by the present school system causing children to attend schools further away from where they live, and to what extent is it caused by a culture in which parents are for whatever reason reluctant to allow children to walk/cycle/bus to school?

You also have to factor school quality and availability/ease of public transport options into the equation - there isn't quite such an easy answer and I suspect it will different for different areas. But I think you're right to suggest that people may be generally less willing to walk/cycle than they did a generation or two ago.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Genuine question: To what extent are those car journeys caused by the present school system causing children to attend schools further away from where they live, and to what extent is it caused by a culture in which parents are for whatever reason reluctant to allow children to walk/cycle/bus to school?

That's a good point. But the thing is (as I see it) if the local school was mandatory you could wholly ban parents picking up and dropping off - because there'd only be one destination an effective US style bus operation could be organised to get those from further away there.

 

[87 027]

you could wholly ban parents picking up and dropping off

Really? They would just stop round the corner. When I passed my driving test the school had a rule that Sixth Formers weren't allowed to drive to school without the Head's permission. Completely unenforceable and an interference of my right as an individual to avail myself of the public highway. I just parked in a side street. (Before someone says that technically the right is only to "pass and repass" there is case law that interprets stopping for an extended period as incidental to that right. Something to do with allowing the horse to have a rest and hay for lunch I believe)

If you're going to eliminate the school run it will need a collection of rather more drastic measures including restrictions/strong disincentives on personal mobility and taking away parental choice.

Edit: I suppose these days you could enforce the no stopping/dropping off in the same sort of way as is done for Red Routes. But it's all sounding rather authoritarian

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If you're going to eliminate the school run it will need a collection of rather more drastic measures including restrictions/strong disincentives on personal mobility and taking away parental choice.

It's unlikely that we'd be able to completely eliminate the school run, and I agree that people will just find ways to circumvent outright bans. I would imagine the things you would need to to do reduce it, would be

• Much greater publicity campaigns aimed at changing the attitudes of parents and educating them about how much harm they do by unnecessarily driving children to school - both to their own children (by depriving them of exercise and independence), to other people's children (by making them breathe more car exhaust fumes) and to the wider community (by causing congestion and pollution).
• Providing safer alternatives - the walking school buses for example are a great idea. Similarly bicycle trains. And making sure there is good cycle parking at schools - and making sure that teaching children to cycle safely is a core part of the curriculum.
• More and reasonably priced dedicated school buses where appropriate.

All the obvious measures to increase the cost of/discourage driving in general that many believe we should implement would help too.

 

[87 027]

In other news it seems that as part of TfL's bailout settlement with the DfT, free child fares are being removed in London.

My kids' school is 1.8 miles away. That's a 10 minute drive, 20 minute bus journey or 35 minute walk (according to my maps app). The school is on the way to the local railway station and the hike in TfL fares (if true) would now mean that when lockdown ends our family combined bus fare is going to be somewhat higher than the daily station car parking charge.

On a wet morning, or when the kids have got school bags, games kits and musical instruments to lug around, what are you going to do?

I repeat my earlier observation of wondering how many posters are actually parents themselves and have first hand experience of dealing with all of this. And not forgetting that a car can transport multiple people for the same cost and environmental footprint as one

 

[Tetchytyke]

you could wholly ban parents picking up and dropping off

That's fine, I'll just stop around the corner. I'm in the car anyway, heading to work, so it makes no odds to me.

The school run does not exist in isolation.

 

[Typhoon]

School uniforms are a whole different ballgame, and are now the way in which schools attempt to police the wealth of students' families. Want to push the poor kids out? Force them to buy a fifty quid blazer.

Fifty quid! Try looking at the Skinner's School uniform list (https://www.simmonds-ltd.com/the-skinners-school.html. Blazer's start at £118.95! (You can get the rugby shirt for £50, though). Should a boy from some of the more deprived areas of Tunbridge Wells (and there are some) manage to pass the Kent Test, his parents may well want to look elsewhere.

 

[muz379]

There is no practical way you could ban parents picking up and dropping off in reality .

When I went to school sometimes a friends mum would drop us both off or pick us up , because it was more convenient for her to continue her journey to work and because she wanted to avoid the school run traffic outside the actual school she dropped us off at a side street a few minutes walk from school .The same when she picked us up .