Moving for secondary schools - is it worth it?

I work in a high performing school, we got great progress 8.

In my nearest town there are three Outstanding grammar schools. Until recently all three secondary moderns there were RI. People move here for the grammars too! However in some areas, the schools they have to accept if they cannot get to a grammar have been piss poor for decades! Not just the odd bit of poor teaching! That would be heaven!

So these areas will have good comps as people move in hoping to get the grammar

I think you’re in my neck of the woods, ChristopherTracy? I think the whole local demographic is skewed towards professional and very involved parents moving over specifically for education. Hence the primaries are also amongst the highest attaining in the country.

In an area with super selective grammar schools, the chances are that the other schools are good. They lose far fewer bright students than the secondary moderns do in county wide grammar areas.

It isn't just that, it is also that lots of the places at most of the super selectives are taken by out of borough children depending on individual school policy. So these areas will have good comps as people move in hoping to get the grammar - they may not because of the intense competition and then find themselves using the comps which raises their results.

I have seen piss poor teaching in grammars btw.

But to answer the OP - depends where you live, your most likely school, your child's propensity to peer pressure and their likely friends and contacts.

Where I live, Ofsted has never found poor teaching in the grammar schools. It’s not true there is poor teaching in every school. Where schools are RI, it’s often because DC are not making good enough progress. It’s because, mostly, teaching is not good enough and SLT haven’t done anything about it. Children do not have to expect poor teaching and neither do parents. It’s not up to parents to engage tutors and fill in the gaps.

There are countless children who do less well because their school has negative progress scores. Had they gone to a better school, they would have got better results. Outlier DC don’t prove a school is great for the majority.

Grammars do have DC with SEN but not SEN and lower attainment. They simply are not in the grammar schools.

In an area with super selective grammar schools, the chances are that the other schools are good. They lose far fewer bright students than the secondary moderns do in county wide grammar areas. So the attainment in the schools you quote is perfectly reasonable in the circumstances.

My opinion is that if your child wants to learn they can do well at any school. You also get good and bad teachers in every school.

We discussed moving to get our DD into a secondary here in Edinburgh which was near the top of the Scottish league table, way higher than our catchment secondary. Thankfully before doing anything about moving, we visited our catchment secondary and were blown away by management & teaching staff. I’m now pleased to report DD is very happy in 5th year (year 12) at her catchment school , she got 7 A’s & a B for Nat 5’s and is making good progress with her highers, all this despite the catchment school being in the lower half of Scottish league tables.

We have always encouraged DD’s learning and take an interest in her course work (although is all way over my head now). She also has a large group of lovely friends from school.

Goood luck with whatever choice you make MonkeyGoesBananas.

What Malmontar says. Like any person in a workplace, teachers will do their best if they know they’re supported and have managers they can turn to + there’s consistency throughout the workplace + there are high expectations of them and they’re monitored and there’s the culture of working hard.

I’ve actually worked in some grammars too and there were quite a few students with learning difficulties (admittedly milder than what most comps face) but the level of support was incredible compared to similar pupils in some comps when they were completely off the radar.

@monkeygoesbananas
Teaching varies greatly but this is ultimately down to the culture of the school and the leadership team. There is a reason why a good head can turn a school around.
When teachers are surrounded by good culture, consistent behaviour management policies and excellent professional development they become excellent teachers even if they started as not very good ones.
It is the same as a kid who goes from a school with low aspirations to one filled with high achieving kids. They'll improve.
So when you have a rubbish school with no aspirations for the students, the same thing happens with teachers.

Just because you start with bright pupils doesn't mean the progress will be low.

Very true. Grammar schools in my area have very high progress scores even though the starting level of the admitted children is exceptionally high already.

OP, both schools sound very successful. Probably not worth moving house for one over the other unless there are other factors like preference over single sex or co-ed, co-curriculars, pastoral care etc.

Where I live, the grammar schools get the best progress scores. One reason for this is that they have no DC with learning difficulties ,or for another reason are lower attainers, that slow down the progress the DC make. In schools it takes a huge effort to get the lower attainers to make good progress. They frequently don’t make any. In grammar schools, these dc don’t exist. That’s why grammars frequently do get good progress scores.

The poster who said one school got 25% 9-5 GCSEs in English and Maths but their school attained 99% truly overlooks the fact that this must be a selective school. No comprehensive could get such results. (If anyone knows one that does I’m happy to be corrected). If you move to a grammar area, don’t forget the local schools will be secondary moderns. The brightest dc are in the grammars (mostly). Having said that, I know secondary moderns that get 60%.

Leafy Lane areas can also have average schools. In fact more dc from these areas go to private schools. It’s not all about parental input either. Teaching quality is absolutely vital. Even dc with engaged parents get let down by poor teaching.

Op: do look into the stats more deeply and read all ofsted reports. They confirm the status of schools over time. Schools have track records of excellence or otherwise. Yes, there might be blips, but the very best schools stay at the top of their game.

I guess a high performing school with bright students will always have a much lower progress score

That's not correct OP. The Progress 8 score shows how much progress pupils at a school made between the end of key stage 2 and the end of key stage 4, as a comparison to pupils across the country who got similar results at the end of key stage 2. So the starting point (in theory) is pupils of a similar ability - the measure is how they progress. Just because you start with bright pupils doesn't mean the progress will be low.

monkey you have to look beyond the whole our school achieve 70% for 5 GCSEs including English and maths. The compare school performance table JoJo linked above is where the information is buried.

I have looked at my son's school on there. They get 0.71+ for Progress 8 so well above average. You then need to open up
Results over time and
Results by pupil characteristics - in there, disadvantaged pupils and prior attainment.

This shows the progress 8 separated out.

You can always name change to stay anonymous but post on here and ask about the specific school. Parents are always willing to talk about their child's school.

@JoJoSM2 oh absolutely. I'm not saying they don't at all. I'm saying home life is more powerful as it can undo the damage done by an awful school. It can also give kids that are already in a good school an even bigger boost.
Bad schools effect the kids from bad homes the most.

I am always impressed by the schools that have high progress 8 in drugged up areas of Enfield or Southwark. The ones that worry me are the leafy nais area schools that get mediocre results, you must be down right awful for that to happen.

That’s because the school does matter a lot. It isn’t just the parents. It’s not uncommon for the senior leadership to change from crap to great and GCSE results to jump up by 20% in 3 years.
Poorly performing schools often have a culture of v low expectations or some teachers giving up on lower sets (talking about schools with normal behaviour not absolute dumps where it’s almost impossible to teach).

I'm no statistician but I've worked in a few London comps. I have always believed that it is not the school, but the house that you come from that matters. This has been proven in studies but ime it looks like this: Obv there are factors like peer pressure etc. However, by the time they're in Y10 and 11, a lot of them have matured even in the worst comp and they realise GCSEs are real. A chunk will stop turning up. Schools won't want to off roll them before Oct/Jan census otherwise they won't get money for them. This is often why you sometimes see the message that this data represents 224 out of 249 pupils. The ones from 'good' homes with parents that will help them with revision timetables, warm meals, grade incentives, tutors etc etc will be the ones that always make it.
In my opinion this is why the 'naise' area schools have such high progress made. Those parents are there and they are not working nights, they speak English, they have a quiet space, their kids are told GCSEs are important not just by the cringey head teacher but by their parents. Their parents can laugh with them about how hard o levels were and they have common ground. All of this is a huge huge thing and almost impossible for a school to replicate.
I am always impressed by the schools that have high progress 8 in drugged up areas of Enfield or Southwark.
The ones that worry me are the leafy nais area schools that get mediocre results, you must be down right awful for that to happen.

We did (moved just before starting primary school but with the aim of being in catchment for local grammar schools). High school in old area according to the website posted above is well below average for attainment with just 25% getting Grade 5 in English and Maths. The attainment at the schools my DC go to now in new area is well above average and 99% get Grade 5 in English and Maths.

For us it's paid off. It's a much nicer area, hundreds of activities on offer as lots of families like us have moved here for schools. Everyone seems to work hard, its expected that they raise their game and study. Am sure its not all tip top but my DC are doing well, much better than I expect they'd have done in previous area. Houses are expensive though (we doubled our mortgage) but that was the cheaper long term option than going private in the old area.

Actually your DH is wrong. Schools are not all the same. Some will get far better progress from DC than others. The government comparison web site has all the data on it. This inevitably means the DC in these schools will do better than if they had gone to a school with negative progress. You could look at, say, 6 schools you know and see what their data looks like. How well do they do in exams? Of course this could reflect catchment area but it can also reflect excellent teaching. That’s the biggest key to dc doing well - excellent teaching. That only happens with inspiring SLT and ensuring the school continues to improve and attracts and supports teachers.

You could also do a search of the Ofsted web site. Look at reports that were published in February last year. Covid free times. Read the secondary school ones that were Inadequate. How well would a dc do going to one of those? How happy would you be as a parent? Then read a few Outstanding or even Good reports. You can certainly see the difference. Ofsted inspect the education delivered at a school over time. It’s not a snap shot. It’s based on a lot of data. They don’t judge individual teachers but they do look at how effective teaching is. If you read a bit more, you and DH will see there are differences in schools. However DH might not think that matters but many parents think it does and would move. They do get less house for their £ but they trust the local school.

Depends how you are defining best.
How old kids are is also significant, in a few years a school can go up or down.

We did move for a secondary school but not to a more expensive area. We moved from an outstanding primary area (but kept the children in that school) which was very expensive and moved a few mile away into a different town. The secondary school was outstanding but the primary school we moved into catchment for was in requires improvement. Meaning we got a much bigger house than we could have afforded in the previous area. That primary is now outstanding so our house price is now ridiculous, but we moved 10 years ago.

I think there are many factors to a child's academic success, the school is one of them because of the teachers passion for their subjects plus if it has good discipline and pastoral. There are things you can't control such as friendship groups and peer pressure. Then there is home life and ensuring your children know the importance of education plus being available to help them. Then there is the attitude of the child.

I am lucky that I have children who are curious, full of questions that they want answers to and are willing to look for them. Ds2 is now in year 10 but has watched a ridiculous amount of Casually Explained or Extra Credits because he just loves learning.

I think if your local secondary is good then stay put.