Anyone else disappointed with their state choices?

"OP- if you have a high achieving child then check what happens to the high achievers at any school you're looking at. If they don't do well, then it's time to panic. But check first."

I've probably been too lax, but how do you check this out?

MumTryingHerBest " This programme has a family who lost out to a school place due to a shrinking catchment for a faith school."

I've only just had a chance to watch this programme - why am I not surprised that the privately educated doctor's wife, living in a 1.5 million pound home, metres away from an outstanding (non-church) state primary school (with 'like-minded' parents - her words) secured a place for her children and the young black woman, living in a less desirable road nearby did not?

The programme was somewhat misleading though - the young black woman did not miss out on her nearest C of E primary school because of shrinking catchments or 'pew jumpers' because the school concerned was in fact her 3rd or 4th nearest C of E primary school, although it was the one she wanted. Also, the pan of this school increased from 30 to 60 in 2013.The narrator told us that the young woman and her partner lived 'just over a mile away' from the school, St. Stephen's Primary in Hammersmith W12. Although we were told that she had been a regular member of the associated church since childhood (lots of references to attendance as a child, less certain of her adult attendance) she only met criteria number 3 under the admissions criteria. Crucially, she did not live in the church parish, which extends at least 1.5 miles, so much further than the catchment areas of popular non-faith schools in Hammersmith and Fulham. The school she was offered, (her 4th choice and a non-church school) is located in W6 - I assume she lived in this area because her child also attended a nursery in W6. There are 3 C of E primary schools in W6 - she would have been guaranteed a place in at least one of them if she had applied with a church reference and St Paul's Primary offered places to all its applicants. Perhaps her 2nd and 3rd choices were not church schools at all; maybe the outstanding John Betts Primary also in W6 (where the doctor's wife secured a place) which only had 4 non-sibling places with a distance cut-off of 0.0.896 of a mile or one of the equally popular free schools?

She might be kicking herself now though for not choosing to apply to St Paul's C of E Primary as the Ofsted report went from 'requires improvement' to 'outstanding' in April 2015 and the non church school she was allocated (her 4th choice ) went from 'good' to 'requires improvement' in March 2015. Next year it might be impossible to gain entry to St Paul's Primary without a church reference so not ''pointless'' to attend church for a school place.

I'm certainly not anti comprehensive. I'm against the fact that currently some people don't have access to ones that are adequate.
In terms of average ability, my dds primary was probably more comparable to a secondary modern than a comp. Yet because it was a great school, even if dd didn't get the same as if she was in an equal ability peer group, she still got a suitable education and it was balanced out by all the benefits of a mixed ability peer group. I'd call a secondary with the same intake and principles suitable for her too. Unfortunately not all comprehensives are like that.
Able kids don't have more right to a suitable education. Just an equal right. And certainly they don't have a duty to sacrifice the chance to achieve their personal best to improve the standards of others. I wouldn't expect a lone average achiever to be ignored because the majority work at a high level and that one average kid is slowing them down, and nor would I accept it in reverse. It takes a good school to differentiate across an ability range. And if you can't get that, then you are left with needing a school with a similar cohort.

Triple science means 3 separate sciences-if it's listed as an option that probably means that double is core.

Surprised at 8- but many schools do 9. My dd went to a very high achieving school where they did 9, but they were expected to do other things as well. The thinking was that they don't need to do more than 9, so use the time for other, more interesting things. Beware schools that do millions- up until recently it was possible to fudge figures by getting bright children doing lots of GCSEs over years 10 and 11 to up the number of A*s and As. Shouldn't happen any more, though.

(also, just a thought, but it might not be that they only sit 8 if you're looking at 'triple science' as just one - it's three GCSEs but will be listed as one option, so that would be 10 GCSES)

triple science does mean the three sciences taught separately, yep - as opposed to Dual Award (I think).

Also many people think that 8 or 9 GCSEs is better than more - you might find that fewer are prevalent at the private schools, as there's a school (ha!) of thought that too many is 'a bit state school', to quote one poster on MN!

talkin I don't put words in anyone's mouths.

I am also blessed with a great memory (blame dyslexia).

You said that you would be very glad when your DS transfered to sixth form because of his peers (I didn't mention friends, they are not the same thing as peer group). I am not going to trawl your posts to link.

The fact that you don't recall saying it no doubt has far more to do with your lack of consistency. Some days you're dancing around MN telling everyone your DC's schools are the best in the northern hemisphere. At other times you're singularly dissatisfied.

Actually bertrand a lot of posters on this thread have DC in comps...so they know whereof they speak.

"The fact that it may be offering a perfectly decent education to someone else's is cold comfort."

It could also be reassurance? In my experience the most vociferous anti comprehensive posters are basing their views on anecdote, TV, their own experience in the past or seeing some children smoking in the street. Or looking at, but not analysing, stats.

Or they are parents of children on the very far right of the bell curve, who think that their child's needs should take priority over all others.

You were saying that you couldn't wait to get your DS out of that school and away from his peers.
Please clarify when I said that : you are a great one for putting words into the mouths of others.
My son has some lovely friends.

As a Governor for 6 years I am very proud of what I achieved thankyou.

And how has standing as a governor worked out for you talkin?

You were saying that you couldn't wait to get your DS out of that school and away from his peers. You have said on this thread that a large number of fellow parents don't give a shit.

The reality is that a parent can do very little in the face of policy and ideology of the SLT. Even as a governor. Nor can they do anything about resources or their fellow parents.

I volunteered in a primary school for years (my DC didn't even go there) and very little changed, in fact some things just got worse.

Then they should become governors and change the schools
or get the government to stop the silly train crash academy system (that limits the rights of parent governors)
or volunteer in the school

but whining on here will not do any good.

not all the kids of MN posters are as above average as their parents would have you think.

But as you can see from this thread talkin many people do not feel that their local comprehensives are offering an education that they want for their DC.

The fact that it may be offering a perfectly decent education to someone else's is cold comfort.

If you provide a type of education to everybody, its what is known as comprehensive

There's little point providing 'a grammar school education' to all children, because a grammar school style education just isn't suitable or accessible for many children.

Ah then I apologise.

I was wondering how it would happen. The difference between what the state spends per pupil and what parents pay in fee paying schools is around 10k a year for secondary (aprox I know both figures vary).

To find 10k for every pupil in secondary school, and 15k for those tranfering from private to state is a huge sum.

*exception no idea what my auto correct is writing!

As do many maybe and as would many more if they had the option of a place at one that met their childs needs.
Unless you are donating at least what it costs the state to educate your dc, let alone the private fee savings into the inadequate comps, I don't think you are in a position to slate the choices of others.
Unless you would honestly send your very able dc to a school where they would likely end in a top set with the worst teacher and a chain of supply ones, working years behind because it takes a good and permanent teacher to differentiate between the huge range of ability in the class, then I think it's hypocritical to say people should use them because you and your dc had the opportunity to attend state schools that met your needs. I don't have that option, short of either sleeping with the pope and getting an excemption for the church school, or a salary increase in the region of at least £6k a year so I can rent a smaller less pleasant house in catchment area for the nearest good school.
I really would love a state comprehensive system that met the needs of all. I didn't gamble with my dds happiness by showing her schools she may well not have been able to go for the sake of a nice building and expensive furnishings. I did it cos the state comprehensive system in my area isn't working for my child. Given the choice between sacrificing my ideal of state comprehensive and my childs education, it's a no brainer.

I think the two points were proximate, but not part of the same point - if private school parents used state schools, that would make a difference to outcomes, and if state schools had the same kind of cash, that too would make a difference. Not, if private schools were closed, then state schools would get all their money.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Maybe!

I don't think she should. I wouldn't.

It was just that she said if private schools closed and the money that was poured into them was poured into state schools, those schools would improve...and I wondered how and why this money would pour in.

Why should maybebaby do that Shegot?

And do you give what you could spend in fees to your DC state school?

Um, I could afford to send DC to a private school, and don't. Plenty of us could do and don't.

And if my dd went to her catchment school, as I don't have the income for her fees, it would not only be another pupil for central government to fund, I'd be making their jobs harder with frequent complaints both to them, governers and ofsted. It wouldn't actually achieve much more for dd than perhaps allowing her to sit alongside and self teach/ do work I've provided in primary covered subjects, as an alternative to repeating stuff she mastered years ago/ being bored shitless. It would give me at least an outlet for the anger I felt at their shit ethos and a vain hope it might change. And of course the time spent answering my frequent complaints would be less time for the average kids. Although it wouldn't take away from the below a pass no matter what achievers cos their needs are equally ignored.