What are STATE schools in London like?

Reading: yes, actually. From Yr 6 onwards and all through secondary in the non-leafy (MN would probably say ‘rough’ ) area I live in, in the 3 Schools I have detailed knowledge of, and others second hand knowledge, there has been constant “Future Leaders” type activity. Specific projects, DoE, Debating, media partnerships, visits by MPs for talks an q&a etc.

Again, I suspect the majority of confidence / entitlement comes from the home environment.

TeenTimesTwo - you are right on all counts!

I think at DC1's school the 'voluntary contributions' are used to help fund the extra A Levels that many of the super bright cohort take (some do five), and for additional enrichment activities. Although 'voluntarily' I have heard it said that parents who haven't paid are encouraged to do so via a friendly telecon! We dutifully paid up for five years because it seemed to be expected, and I guess because we felt that the investment would be returned. It hasn't quite panned out like that, so this year we made a conscious decision to stop paying it. We felt that we'd be better off investing the saved monies in our own DC than helping subsidise other people's on their stellar academic trajectories! Sounds selfish? We are by no means well-off (we get by), and quite probably considerably less so than many who have not ever contributed (of whom there are a sizeable %)!

At DC2's school there was no mention of the voluntary contribution being used for academic purposes but rather for pastoral care type of activities. A much more egalitarian approach, I feel!

I don't know whether it's usual for secondary schools with high % of children from poorer backgrounds to ask for voluntary contributions at all. I suspect not.

Many of us pay expected donations, its something you do like listening to your young children painfully sounding out their reading books every night (i hate this, and will do anything to make dh do it).

Churches are full of parents playing the faith school game, its long winded and time consuming but worth it at secondry level.

Ditto musical instruments, EVERY child i know plays at least one. Musical apptitude plus church attendance is a winner around here.

If we reach one child I'd be pleased - 99% have never seen the inside of a corporate environment but I just don't know what the answer is. Again it's about access to things that give youngsters an advantage.

Take the Year 10/11 work experience fortnight. Fine if you have family or friends who work in corporate environments who can pull strings for placements, but not if you don't. I know some schools have stopped doing it because it's unfair on those who don't have the contacts to get decent 'gigs'.

I do also think that state schools do not imbue their pupils with the same levels of confidence (and dare I say it, entitlement?) as their privately educated colleagues. My impression is that private schools educate DC to become leaders and to expect to get careers in professions and corporate environments. Do you get that in state schools in the same way? I suspect not (generally).

Maybe in some cases perceived disaffection=lack of confidence in abilities?

The vast majority of my local / London friends have kids doing well in a variety of S London comps. No tutoring.

I am pretty sure given the very mixed dynamic that there will be kids alongside them who don’t have broader interest and knowledge, there are statistics concerning high numbers boys who have never lived with an employed male relative as a role model etc. But mostly, whether in private or state, this comes from the home, so actually my kids are not disadvantaged.

The schools put a lot of effort into pushing high ability, low social capital kids into pre-University days, getting good work experience, etc.

And taking them to inter-school competitions, things on offer for free.

The top sets are full of low income kids doing extremely well alongside kids from ‘comfortable’ kids.

We also have an issue with DC2's school which I find super amusing. Pupils to their state secondary literally cross paths at every turn with those heading in the opposite direction for one of the nearby very sought-after public schools! Given the super location of the two schools, you'll also find that some of pupils were previously at primary school together! Go figure!

CookieDoughKid

CookieDoughKid

You are so right. I teach in a state secondary and am banging my head against a brick wall trying to tell pupils that there is a world outside their limited experience. Many have almost no awareness of current affairs, geography, vocabulary etc and often seem proud of their ignorance. This is due to their limited home lives and cannot be fixed by good teaching whatever OFSTED might think. If a child has no desire to learn it is impossible to succeed. State secondaries have plenty of good teachers and the appalling politicisation of education and ridiculous statements in the media are a disgrace. Schools are the scapegoats for the social ills that successive governments have failed to address and paying for private education for a few is not the answer. I don’t blame parents who send their children to private schools as what they can offer in terms of enrichment is undeniably better and parents who pay for education have a vested interest in encouraging their children to learn. This is far from the case in your average state comprehensive.

I have one DC in a super-selective and another in a relatively 'leafy area' comp (although it is by no means THE sought-after local school and was 3rd on DC2's CAF). DC1 is near the end of secondary school education and DC2 has just started so it's not entirely fair to make comparisons. However, there are glaring differences.

DC1's school very much operates like a private school but without the super facilities. Text books aplenty, lots of enriching extra-curricular activities, some of the teachers are super involved even in their own time, lots of overseas trips, CCF, just about everyone does DofE...Expected monthly voluntary contributions of £35(+)...

DC2's school very different. No textbooks, no overseas trips (or even UK based ones), only a few do DofE, no CCF...Expected annual contribution of £25...The cultural and socio-economic mix is much more diverse although there are still some pupils from very well off backgrounds who by rights one might expect to be at the local independent schools.

DC2 is already grumbling about how unfair it is that she's not going to get the same opportunities as DC1 (although to be fair he has not done lots of the overseas trips - we can't afford it!).

So even in the state system there are vast differences. It's not fair at all really. And money talks every bit as much in determining state school choice (certainly in London), as it does in opting to go down the private route.

CookieDough - corporate insight day for Y10/11 sounds fantastic

My academic, A* / 9 kids have not seen the inside of a ‘corporate environment ‘ by age 15, and neither have their middle class friends, and I’m not sure how inspiring they would find it, tbh.!

I think on the main state schools do a good job for the masses. But do state schools prepare the pupils enough for top jobs, hone their skills, and prepare them for the realities of job hunting?

I agree that there are excellent state schools in London. But often they have tiny catchment areas. We live over two miles away from the two excellent comprehensives in our borough so couldn’t get into either. Our closest schools are two ‘outstanding’ faith secondaries that we didn’t qualify for as we are not actively following either of those faiths. Navigating the London grammar/ faith/ comprehensive system is also not without its stresses.

You can’t judge how good a school is from its position in a league table. Most of the top ‘500’ schools are selective so merely reflect the intake, as do some of the very ‘posh’ so-called comps.

Here in S London we are certainly not in sensible reach of selective schools so our schools are true comps.

My Dc have had / are getting an excellent state education in primary and 2 different comps. Both secondaries have high Pupil Premium numbers, serve council estates, very ethnically diverse. Both have excellent teaching, manage behaviour well across all abilities and have instant and rigorous policies to deal with bullying.

Both have excellent music and art departments and offer free individual music lessons to all PP pupils and cheap to all.

Neither is good at sport: they don’t have playing fields, or good facilities. They could do more in terms of trips out and extra curricular.

But we live in London: we are surrounded by great projects available through theatres, galleries and music venues. You can work with top musicians from weekly workshops on the S Bank to a youth music project in Brixton.

Listening to other parents talk, many make a decision based on social selection, and some myths based on the comps of the 70s and 80s.

I’m sure not all London comps are good or places you would feel all that happy about, but I would have thought that anyone who can afford to put a couple of kids through CLGS would have more control over where they live than someone in social housing.

There isn't a desirable solution given the funding cuts in state education. Our children including mine who also attend state will be up against a strong cohort for jobs in the future. Employers will not care at all which school yout child went to and won't make concessions. They are only interested in the candidate thar best fits for them and gives them the most value. This may out me but yesterday we ran a corporate insight day for local state school Yr 10 and yr11 with a mixed ability cohort from 5 schools- all from a top 40% wealthy area (as per stats provided by previous poster) as my company is located in m4 corridor. We went over cv, interview tips, did group tasks, challenges and also final presentations to the judges. I just came away quite disappointed at how disengaged these students were and their lacking abilities in basic maths and English vocab. FRankly, they have a lot to do to measure up to the applicants who do successfully gain summer internships, workplacements and graduate jobs. My advice is that many state kids need a rocket up their arse or else they literally have no chance to make it and get their first job. (We had a live q&a with our recruiter who gave quite anice honest account that he receives 200CVs nationally for each internship or summer placement) and he only spends 60 to 120seconds scanning each one.

If we reach one child I'd be pleased - 99% have never seen the inside of a corporate environment but I just don't know what the answer is. Else we will have an even wider social problem if we continue granting places to private school or state bright kids who come from supported and wealth backgrounds of whom several are under my wing this summer.

I believe PettsWoodParadise DC goes to a superselective Grammar based on previous threads. Those are (to many people) just as difficult access as private schools (for different reasons obviously.

I read the City threads with frustration and now this similarly. So many posters in a giant bubble of privilege.

We live in London and our children go to state schools. Like the majority of people living in the city, we have no choice about that because we can't afford private school. Every single child from my son's year 6 primary class went to state secondaries, with one getting a place at a grammar school almost an hour's journey away.

Our kids are a mix of abilities. Our son could probably have got into a selective private school if we'd had the money, but I doubt all our kids would. In this corner of MN where children are picking and choosing their school offers, it's easy to forget that most children don't stand a chance at the outset.

Would our kids have a better experience at private schools with all the facilities they have? Very likely, but we don't have that option. I have been supremely irritated by the many references on the City threads along the lines of 'there are no schools where we live'. Of COURSE there are. They're just schools where other people have to send their children.

The number of people who went to private school who deny that this gave them any sort of advantage is legion. I know plenty. Living in total denial of what a pernicious system we live in. They would read threads on here and nod along in agreement of the common sense approach that regretfully you just can't have your kids going to these state schools. While we continue to have this damaging two tier education system, and I imagine that will be forever, we are disadvantaging thousands of children every single year.

For the OP, London secondaries are mostly decent schools battling the decreasing funding from a government that can't prioritise educating the majority of English and Welsh students. They absolutely don't compare to selective private schools but many of them are capable of educating children well. Compared to schools with even less funding outside the capital they are lucky.

What do non-tutoring state school parents feel about state parents who employ tutors outside of school? It skews results so the amazing league table positions of some state secondaries may not be quite as stellar as they seem. Also of course it means that there is no 'parity' to pupils' results really.

Is a child from a comprehensive on the 'wrong side of town' (who has had little parental invention and no tutoring) who gets all high Bs less clever than his counterpart at a very leafy, sought after comprehensive (whose parents have employed tutors to help improve results) and gets As?

Virtually every child known to our family, of my DS's age, had a tutor for at least one subject, if not more, through GCSEs.

I think that with private education most parents are buying into securing the type of education that will get the results, the contacts, the polish and a cohort with similar values and backgrounds. In the state sector many parents will vehemently state that they're anti-independent schools but be very sharp-elbowed about ensuring that their DC get into a state secondary that is similar (particularly in London) AND then pay for tutors - where's the difference really?

And the tutoring market seems to be flourishing in a way it certainly didn't when I was at school.

"State primary school parents are very smug about obtaining places at Indy senior schools at 11+ but they are less smug 6 years and £120k later when they are visiting the same universities as the state primary classmates who remained in the state system."

That assumes the parents care only about the outputs, not the whole journey and experience of the secondary years.

Talkin - this thread is in 'secondary education' and your comment is based on KS1. Can you confirm whether your assessment of the existence of dire schools in London includes secondaries?

PettsWoodParadise, care to share which school your DC attends? Sounds brilliant.

I was extremely lucky to be able to go private with my next DC. However, it has not changed my views on a good free education for all. I just now realise that that is an almost impossible dream.

Traalaa. Agree with you that all children are entitled to free education. But it is no longer free. How many posters on this thread have been asked to contribute by their state school? I was asked to pay minimum £150 per term at a state school but there were still no resources as many parents did not pay, although a few wealthier ones gave £1000 - £2000 per annum. Much of the money raised was used to cover legal expenses when they were getting rid of teachers, not for resources. Why should I pay for bad management when my child is still stressed by lack of resources? Many parents at that school employed tutors to get their DCs through GCSE and A Levels because of the problems. What do non-tutoring state school parents feel about state parents who employ tutors outside of school? The whole area of education in this country is murkier than it first appears. Damian Hind needs to forget about building more grammars and needs to concentrate on the schools already suffering and I don't mean free schools.

DD gets to study subjects and have experiences that parents on MN lament is the reason they choose independent for their DC (wide range of languages, classics, regular lectures, amazing extra curricular, teachers who do an amazing job). We live in the suburbs of London and DD gets a great state education. I am in a job where I went from a comp to a rather average university and ended up managing two Oxbridge people. I know from experience life isn’t just about where you went to school but your resilience, your capabilities and personality. I know some privately educated childen who fell at the final university hurdle as they were not used to the niggles of getting along in the state sector. It isn’t just about the school but the whole mix.

need to add, as I was just looking this up about my local "outstanding" sought after secondary state school (LMS, as it happens) with a catchment area of 300 metres for open places:
out of 90 girls in Sixth Form, only 3 took A-Level further maths. All three scored a C. 18 at least took Maths A-level (not even a quarter of the cohort!) and only one of those achieved an A*.
I am not saying that everybody should be taking Further Maths or scoring A* in A-Level Maths, but I would at least like to see a group of 10-15 kids at that level. Also, what does it say about the level of teaching if none of those who chose Further Maths achieved better than a C? And this is supposed to be one of the best comps.

Education/NHS - same problem. Neither are free. They belong to us ths people. It's tume the people stopped being grateful and started demanding excellence.

We sent one of purs to LMS for two years. It was badly run with diabolical pastoral and academic standards. Notwithstanding the fact an unofficial apartheid operated in the context of class and race. It was very yoxic with a two tier system of sanctions whereby underprivileged girls were allowed to do as they pleased with barely a sanction (assault/theft etc) but well behaved middle class girls were screamed at and treated very punitively for the most minor misdemeanour. It got an outstanding Ofsted when teaching was rated only as good. I didn't think that was supposed to happen

It got worse too after dd left.