How do a few comprehensive schools produce seem to produce successful people?

I don't know anything about the schools in the Bromley/Kent area, but some comprehensives are clearly doing well, and not just in leafy middle class areas. There was a lovely story on a thread a couple of weeks ago about a school in East London where lots of pupils had received offers from Oxbridge.

My DCs are in a Bromley comp.

DC1 was one of the highest scorers in the country in last year's GCSEs (without any extra tuition).

I live in a different county to you and none of the local comp schools round here post lists of alumni at all - illustrious or otherwise. It's just not the done thing. I'm quite sure they have their fair share of successful former students, they just don't go on about it. Or maybe they aren't even told. Two extremely successful and well-known household names went to my dc's school, but they aren't mentioned in the school prospectus or website.

The John Fisher School clearly selects RC boys who have been baptised at a given time and attended mass regularly. Two categories come above this: looked after children and siblings. The RC connection is category A. They have category B but the school says Category A is oversubscribed. So this system seems to produce great alumni. It’s hugely selective. It’s a very sporty school but DC that don’t meet the strict admissions criteria won’t get in. From their own web site they are clearly not admitting non catholics. I assume the boys there travel from a wide area and it’s not a local comprehensive. Travelling implies parents have money too.

My DCs Comp has some impressive alumni. It does this by: encouraging achievement in all kinds of areas, which has included assessments to see if students have the right "body type" for less popular sports.
The other key aspect is keeping in touch and reaching out to successful alumni. And inviting them back to a range of activities: prize giving, careers days etc.

No selection, "catchment" even includes council housing, but it is becoming harder to get into from outside the core area.

I don’t think it’s fair to say comprehensives in Bromley are crap.
Apart from Langley Boys and Girls, Darrick Wood is very good. As is Hayes. Ravens Wood is also good. Bullers Wood is good. Then there is Newstead and St Olaves, although they are grammars. And access to all the grammars in Kent.

I think people who live in Bromley are well served for schools.

Although tbf I don’t think that’s what you really mean. It’s the funding formula then- a school that does well one year will get more pupils the next year, and then more money because pupils=money. Means some schools are in a cycle of doing badly, getting fewer pupils and then getting less money so they struggle to improve the next year.
It’s a shit system really.

As others have said there are no catchment in London so it's furthest distance, thus if course it's geographical selection. Nesrvus (though no so close edd get in) is one if the top 10 comps in London. In a very affluent area. What a surprise.

You what? It never really occurred to me that going to the local comp (as I did) was going to prevent me ever doing well at anything

Around here there is no line on the map and no obligation to increase the intake if there is an increase in the numbers in the area. If you don't get into a local school then you are sent to a further away school.

@Bahhumbug01 have you actually researched the areas you're looking at? Because I can tell you there is a severe shortage of secondary places in Edenbridge. There is no 'local comp', in fact the nearest school (currently requires improvement) is in the next county!

ontop
But the Greenwich Ruling en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwich_Judgement
does not stop catchments at all

London LEAs are too small to be sustainable
ILEA was better for education

As a result, the children tend to be middle class and have parents who have put in quite a lot of thought into getting into this school.

And the type of parent who has this much capability for planning and executing a long term educational project is going to ensure their child engages with school when he/she gets there.

I don’t know the school you’ve mentioned. I do know of one C of E school where to have any chance of getting in, the children must have been christened by six months, have a letter from the vicar to confirm that they go to church at least every other week (and have done for four years) and must live mere metres from the school. As a result, the children tend to be middle class and have parents who have put in quite a lot of thought into getting into this school.

I think most schools abandoned catchments in London after the Greenwich Ruling. Some do still have them but, for example, very successful LAs like Richmond don't.

Sunset
Secondary schools in London have been dysfunctional ever since the Academy system started.
LAs are responsible for schooling kids but are banned by law from creating the schools and places to educate them.
Kingston have bragged about creating a shortfall to save money for years.
THat should be enough to get the councillors banned from elected office

I'm in a grammar area and none of the grammars here produce anyone spectacular tbh. I went to a Roman Catholic school in London tho which had really good results

Well, to be fair, the vast majority of LA schools in London don't have any designated catchment at all - it is purely done on distance. I appreciate this differs by LA.

Geographic selection by schools inevitably leads to socioeconomic segregation over time. Redrawing of catchment boundaries is one way to counter this.

shouldwe
Catchment areas can shrink if admission is done on distance.
You are confusing intake and catchment
The catchment boundary is a line on the map.
If more houses are built, a catchment school has to expand to fit them to comply with the admissions code.

I know people who live in a part of London which is not in any school catchment.
A gross failing of the Academy system.

Maipru
My house over the border into the catchment of the school my kids went to would cost 33% more
but I did not have to move

In our non-London city, the difference in house prices/rents for comparable size houses in the catchment zones for the poor-results comprehensives vs the high performing comprehensives is bigger than the amount of typical school fees. ie you'd be paying £15,000 per year in school fees for private, but to move into catchment for the best-performing comprehensive school would be a good £18,000 per year more in mortgage payments. It's underhand selection by wealth.

talk1npeace

The official designated catchment doesn't shrink, no. However all schools who have distance as one of their criteria can find the catchment area shrinks. At the following school (in fact several schools as it's from the LA admissions criteria) the first criteria is looked after children and the rest of the criteria are:

1. Siblings living in the first, second or joint area. [of priority]

1. Geography - Children living in the first area. Children living within the school’s designated area of first priority.

1. Geography - Children living in the second or joint area. Children living within the school’s area of second priority/joint area. Siblings living outside the area.

1. Siblings living outside the area.

1. Geography - Out of the area children. Children living closest to the school as measured in a direct line from the home address to the school.

Catchment areas can shrink if admission is done on distance. If a school only has 180 spaces in a year group they will go to students living closer to the school than those further away. When a school becomes more popular people move closer to that school and further away students miss out on a place.

I went to a crap school, but it still had an extremely famous actor amongst its alumni. If a school is old enough and big enough, some people who go there are bound to get famous at some point.

Selection by housing prices and/or (in the case of faith schools) specified hoops about being baptised and turning up at church.