What are STATE schools in London like?

OP, I was wondering the same, not since the CLSG drama but before I even had children, I used to go to work at 6:30am/7am in the morning and I would see the Dulwich College school bus in Fulham (I am not sure it still exists, this was some years ago), and boys would be stepping on the bus in those early morning hours, and I thought, how crazy is this, they are so desperate not to go to the local state schools that they would rather get up at 6am in the morning and go on a bus for 45min. It is quite crazy, and indeed, if all those kids' parents (or at least a significant amount of those) decided collectively to send their kids to the local state school, the intake would be totally fine.
We have a situation in Kensington and Chelsea where 55% of families educate their children privately at primary and secondary level. All you would need is for a fraction of those to switch to state school. But nobody wants to be the first one, I guess.
The private schools and the faith schools make it hard. I have the impression the upper middle classes / wealthy people go to private no matter what, most of the English middle class go for the Church of England Schools, the French / Spanish / Irish / Italians try to get their kids into the Oratory or Cardinal Vaughan, and where does it leave the atheist middle class? Try to join a fancy private school where you don't really belong, or try to get one of the few outstanding secondary schools with a decent amount of high performing children. The catchment areas for these are usually 300 - 400 metres.
What I don't like about our outstanding local secondary school is that

• they only start streaming from Year 8. At least for Maths and English, in a true comp, the ability range will be so wide that I really don't believe the most able kids will progress as well as they would in a selective private school. I have looked at their Year 7 Maths curriculum and I am expecting my kids to be covering this stuff in Year 4/5 at prep school. I don't need them to go to a place like Tiffin (and they probably wouldn't get in), but I don't want them taught Maths in a class room where some kids don't know their times tables or don't know the basics. And that will happen in a comp
• it's a Church of England school and religious education is a mandatory GCSE subject
• the only languages on offer are Spanish and French
• there is no Computer Science GCSE or A-Level
• the A-Level choices are quite limited as they have option blocks that you have to choose from, so it may happen that if you take Maths, for example, you can't choose History A-level anymore. Timetabling issues or whatever it is
• also, if you read the feedback on mumsnet even on the supposedly best state schools (Fortismere, Greycoat, Holland Park, Lady Margaret etc.), it is actually quite mixed. I wonder if some people just don't want to take the risk. Of course the kids will be fine long term and they may well end up at the same university, but are they going to love school? Are they going to be enthusiastic about going there? Will they be happy and inspired? Or will they just go to get their A's at GCSEs and get into university x but look back and think they wasted a lot of time and didn't really enjoy it?

Agree with cantkeepawayforever
All our counties secondary schools have budget defects, one of lowest funded counties too.
WE have at best 0% chance of accessing a Ofsted "GOOD" school, in fact 65% of our nearest schools are either inadequate or in special measures, other 35% require improvement.
But 96% of local parents use one of them.
Problem in England is two fold, to many Politian's are privately educated/Oxbridge educated and only care about London and SE, second London and SE gets bulk of spending
Anothernewt bet our schools make our local ones look like ETON, but we aren't snobs or avoid lesser mortals, and all kids use them, just local Tory MP avoids them for his daughters and spends £52000 on their education, whilst letting his local schools rot.
London has it easy, YOU ALL LIVING IN A COSY BUBBLE.

I have had experience of state, state grammar and private schools. State schools are seriously underfunded. This means there are no resources, no items for science experiments, no textbooks, sometimes no subject teachers, sometimes no heating, no computer maintenance, etc, etc. This causes stress for heads, governors, teachers and most importantly for students. Those stresses are removed in private schools and I was lucky to be able to remove those stresses for at least some of my children. State education is not as comfortable as it was when I was a student (never thought I would ever say that) and parents are being asked at some state schools to pay large amounts of money for basics, not even extracurricular, which should come from government. I have never heard before of a situation like CLGS and think it disgraceful. Paying or not, these are children, young people, being treated badly.

TalkinPeace You keep saying that nowhere in London is deprived. This statement flies in the face of actual, real statistics. London contains some of the most deprived communities in the UK. This is a fact, backed up by real, actual statistics.

We live in a borough that is in two halves socio-economically. There is great affluence and privilege and yet not a complete bus route away there is real deprivation. This reflects in the schools, state and private (we also have one of the top 5 uber academic public schools in London and a top-performing GDST school too), and indeed the choices that local families make about educating their DC.

There is a huge issue and angst about which state secondaries people will apply to on behalf of their children. Basically three of the choices (we have fewer than 10 in total) are in the deprived part of the borough and another one seems to attract an intake at least in part from said deprived area. Guess what? No-one with academic and social aspirations for their children tends to apply to those three/four - they will apply out of borough rather than do so. Or they opt to educate their children privately, if they've got the money and aren't ideologically against it. So it's quite common to see quite a high % of the state primary school cohort in the 'naice' parts of the borough defecting to private education at secondary school transfer stage. And I'm sure I read somewhere that 35% of the pupils are educated out of borough and/or in the private sector.

There are lots of UK nationals who are 'economic migrants' in London. I always think that those who moved to where the jobs are have more 'nous' and will be more education oriented for their own DC. They understand the value of education and of being faced with an uncertain career future (had they not moved 'down south') which in turn spurs them on to be invested in ensuring their own DC get good schooling.

On the subject of funding, I really dread to think what it's like outside London if some of you posters are staying that London state secondaries are better funded than their counterparts elsewhere in the country. DS's super-selective seems very poor in many ways (although I do wonder whether it's because they pay the teachers more than their comprehensive colleagues?). Fortunately, many parents make the monthly 'voluntary contributions (I've worked out we've paid £1.5K so far) and the PTA makes a killing. At least they provide text books and lots of super enriching opportunities at his school! At DD's comprehensive (outstanding and in a leafy 'burb'), there are no text books at all, few hard copy sheets handed out for homework and none of the enriching extra-curricular activities/trips that DS has at his school.

I do think that there is much snobbery about the state school system, some of which is unfounded. There are many urban myths circulating and many of those perpetuating them are doing so on the basis of hearsay, or experience of state schools that is very out-of-date. However there are very many left-leaning, uber educated (many Oxbridge), professional parents who would never touch private schools with a barge-pole. There are also lots of 'champagne socialist' parents, even in parts of London with very highly sought after comprehensives, who choose to educate their DC privately.

TeenTimesTwo In answer to your original OP:

I think Whitechapelfatberg nailed it in her first response to your question. Classes are large and funding less plentiful than in many/most private schools. Behaviour is mixed. A lot of people go private to avoid that.

Of my dd's state primary class, about 50% went private for secondary. This was despite the state options being pretty good, including a range of high-performing comprehensives and grammars.

Why? Well, some of the children gained entry into some of the independents that are amongst the best in the country, some of the children gained entry into independents with large bursaries or smaller scholarships, some of them chose the independent route quite probably because they (the parents) had been educated privately and they just couldn't imagine doing anything different.

Some who chose the independent route did so because they weren't convinced that their child would cope with the culture of a large state secondary (where they are one amongst many children; where they might not be in the top sets but in ones where behaviour is more challenging). I'm pretty sure some chose the independent sector because their children had a SEND and they found more nurturing, SEND focused schools in the private sector. I suspect one or two chose the independent route because they were a bit thrown by the class mix of the state schools - though I never found a single parent actually saying that.

As for what the schools are like: my two were in the top streams of state schools. Their classes were, indeed, large. The facilities in dd's school are pretty ropey. The 'treats' (trips, enrichment opportunities) are few and far between. The subjects on offer to study are limited. I write this in comparison with what is on offer at local grammar schools and the independents her friends attend - mind you, her friends are at top independents, rather than ordinary independents.

The school is very mixed, however - both in terms of class and racial background. I wonder if it would be that mixed outside of London? There are lots of very ambitious children in her class, with very ambitious parents. There are lots of high-achievers. The social and economic background of her classmates is very mixed, too. Though I don't think there are any Russian oligarchs in the class - those really do tend to stay in the private sector.

Teaching is rigorous, with high expectations. While I said that the range of subjects offered is perhaps more limited that in some schools, it also has some surprising areas of excellence, which go beyond anything you might reasonably expect. Music is amazing, for example.

In short, if you had the offer of a place at CLGS, and could take that up, you'd choose that over my dd's school. But my dd's school is pretty great, imo.

thecatfromjapan
Tee hee
I study Education Data because I am DH's accountant.
We read the Ofsted report of every school he visits - so we know what he's in for.
Understanding the IMD data for an area means he does his job well.

I also study IMD data because a lot of my income is to do with Local Government and transport and infrastructure
so actually the fact that I enjoy looking at the data sets while being paid to is a total bonus.

I suppose I was thinking about what was needed to over the years of underfunding. And that the differences between funding levels are considerably less sharp than they were.

And then of course you could argue yourself into the ground about the headline funding v various levels of granularity in proxy deprivation measures (because within boroughs there can be very seriously deprived areas, and so looking at whole council areas is not the whole answer)

I agree that areas which were underfunded before and are still underfunded are in a worse position.

it is the turn-around that now makes then averagely funded

The top 16 (in terms of per pupil funding) most highly funded LAs are all in London.

A few outer London LAs are not in the top 20. None are out of the top 30 (out of 150). How does this make them 'averagely funded'?

Also, can we be a little bit more precise with the whole "immigrants = success in schools" discourse, please?

This report is recent, and detailed.

It is not the case that the success of London state schools is simply down to some blanket thing about immigration. I have absolutely no wish to diminish the achievements of children - and the families they are part of - in the UK education system. However, the achievements and outcomes are more nuanced than a simple story of "strong work ethic, raising standards in the schools they arrive in."

I'm really fed up of "simple stories". Facts are more interesting - and I think it's time we started listening to experts again.

Honestly, I would never dream of spouting a load of opinions about areas of the UK I have never visited, or been part of, or systems I know nothing about, based on having watched a few episodes of 'Midsomer Murders'. And if my knickers were completely in a twist about a particular subject, to the extent of it becoming a compulsion, I would probably take that as an indication that I might want to gain some kind of professional, expert-based, disciplanarily rigorous basis for my hobby.

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

My DCs are in London Indys but lots of friends DCs have done spectacularly well in good London state schools. Yes, they are "nice leafy school comps" and all the usual cliches but bright DCs do very well at these schools.

In our area of SW London parents seem to have been sold on to the idea that state primary schools are fine but once a child enters senior school you need to pay fees. This is a myth encouraged by the Indy schools themselves. 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.

The parents of Richmond have done so much in recent years to improve parental choice by opening new schools etc. I am looking forward to seeing how they affects the numbers tranferrring to the private sector over the next 5 years.

catfromjapan
On 7th Feb this year on another thread I posted this .....

the poorest part of London is Hackney 018B in Hackney Wick
it is the 586 out of 32844 most deprived locations
Portsmouth, Southampton, Thanet, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Hull
all have MUCH poorer areas
(the poorest 5 are in Blackpool, Essex, Blackpool, Thanet and Blackpool again)
London scores low on deprivation because it has
- transport
- jobs
- education options
all of which are funded much more generously than the rest of the country
You can download and sort the data set if you like - but big spreadsheets are rather a hobby of mine

catfromjapan
You keep saying that nowhere in London is deprived. This statement flies in the face of actual, real statistics. London contains some of the most deprived communities in the UK. This is a fact, backed up by real, actual statistics.
Um, nope.
The most deprived parts of London are richer than the poorest parts of all the other major cities, and some minor ones, and several coastal areas
as per the Government data set dclgapps.communities.gov.uk/imd/idmap.html

Less than 200 yards from where I sit is an area that is more deprived than ANY part of London.
and then people wonder why I did not send my kids to my local school

Talkin yes, there probably more scope for variance in prepreps

(Still wondering which you mean! The established preps aren't as you describe, but I don't really know so much about the newer ones further out in the suburbs)

If schools in London are feeling the pinch, imagine what it's like elsewhere? does this actually have to be imagined? London schools were underfunded compared to most of the country until about 15 or so years ago, and it is the turn-around that now makes then averagely funded that has helped foster the big improvement in state schools, especially secondaries (something which might not really have seeped in to public consciousness year).

For example, in the two places where I have lived in London the secondary nearest (and only ones we could be sure of getting an offer from) were utterly woeful. Obviously my Location Location Location radar is off, because they were both schools regularly featuring on the then 'worst in London' lists, and had huge behavioural issues. But one has really turned around, and people like it. The other has been taken over and has improved considerably. If those improvements bed in, the reputation will change but there's quite a long lag until it does.

Well, simple facts are that independent schools have 3-5x the funding per pupil compared to state schools so the classes are bound to be smaller, facilities much better and variety of activities on offer greater.

It's also a well-researched fact that in the indie sector, a child will on average get 0.5 higher GCSE grades than in a comp (comparing like for like ability levels).

Whether the academic and non-academic extras (not to mention the snob factor) are worth fees is for parents to decide. Provided they're in a financial position to even contemplate the matter.

I also think grammars are a great idea - at least parents of highly academic children have a good option for them.

TalkinPeace You keep saying that nowhere in London is deprived. This statement flies in the face of actual, real statistics. London contains some of the most deprived communities in the UK. This is a fact, backed up by real, actual statistics.

I know it's not a competition - the UK contains many areas of deprivation and all of them are an indication of the unfairness of unequal wealth distribution and the needless foreshortening of lives and life opportunities.

However, it actually is quite alarming to think that people play so fast and loose with facts.

Here is a fantastic map you can play around with. It's the product of massive amounts of work, by experts, drawing on a rich source of data here

Please look at it. You are, actually, wrong in your assertions - which you state forcefully and repeatedly.

I find it somewhat scary to think that people may mistake the vehemence and regularity of your assertions for a. experience (as you often reveal in your posts , you have none - you neither live in London, nor attended a state school, nor do you have any kind of direct experience of either - your husband visiting schools doesn't, actually, count) or b. particular education or professional training in this area (again, chatting to your husband when he arrives home in the evening and vehemently stating opinions again and again on the internet is not, actually, a professional qualification).

I must implore you to avoid endz

Thats exactly it! Beautifull place but no aspirational jobs. Parents see the school run and reading books as a chore, these children are behind in primary even though they are pottering along nicely.. by secondry that view of life is already set and most go nowhere.

Gowgirl
Your analysis is right .... and it comes back to what I said up thread about local opportunity
DH's euphemism is Yeoman stock .... folks who have lived in an area for hundreds of years and see no need to move and consider that progress is for others.
Schools full of them are depressing places often beautiful geographically but depressing

Londoners are often shocked to discover that NO PART of London is in the most deprived areas of England.

We pay a donation every term to primary its not a huge amount, about £60 per year per child but everyone pays it, there is also a very active pta who pull in around 26k a year.

As a comprehensive parent from one of the very poorest-funded counties in England (in terms of £ per pupil funding) I'm wryly amused by the 'state schools in London have no money'.

Many have double the funding per pupil a local comprehensive here would have. If schools in London are feeling the pinch, imagine what it's like elsewhere?

Tbh, comprehensives in London perform very well, in terms of value added / progress (which is probably the best measure available, despite its faults, of the school rather than its intake).

There seem to be 3 reasons for this:

• Relatively high funding compared with elsewhere (and the legacy of the pan-London improvement programme that did create a step change in many areas)
• High proportions of ethnic groups with high academic aspirations (remembering that after a few smaller groups like Travellers, it is poor white British boys who generally achieve least well at school)
• An obvious reason to gain qualifications, through living in a place where jobs exist, and where the prosperity of those who have jobs is relatively obvious (this is not true in e.g. deprived ex-industrial northern areas, where generations of worklessness and lack of local employment to aspire to has depressed aspiration significantly)

On an 'absolute results' level, of course these schools won't compare with elite private schools - but it is impossible to compare schools that are so different in terms of intake in any meaningful way.

Quicker - Plenty of well off to very rich send their children to state schools. Are they asked for donations? Do state schools ask successful former alumni for money?

Yes and yes, at both my DCs state schools

I went to a dire comp on the coast, it was the only option that wasnt an hour bus ride.
My dn s will go to the same comp as according to dsis we did ok there.
All of my 6 london choices plus the school i dont want which is a distinct possibility outstrip said comp, i have spent 3 yrs getting my eldest upto speed as when we moved back he was 2 years behind in his large diverse city primary. I had been told he was fine and doing well in the primary that feeds into dire school on the coast.
So if you compare london schools to many rural ones they are much better, more diverse, smaller classes, engaged teachers with better extra curricular activities. You also have more choice.

OP, there are quite a few 4-18 schools in London tha, it's fair to say, cater for the not-so-bright (though some weed out the less academic). They still claim to test the kids at 4, but it's not the world's most exact test, so that's one way to get round the craziness. New private schools open constantly to cope with demand for the not-so-bright or the poor dc who relocate and haven't been prepped for 11+ but if they're any good they become harder to get into too. The London market is hugely pumped up by the number of expats here who simply will not countenance state education for whatever reason and look at you (well me) in astonishment when I admit my dc once attended a state school.

anothernewt
Definition of London = 0208 or 0207 phone number
Definition of hothouse = year 1 and 2 kids being tested to the point of regular tears
Definition of Dire = unhappy teachers, unhappy kids, results sliding, fees rising
based on DH working at them over the years