Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Original poster

Innocent poll: Would you willingly send your DC to a so called poor school for the sake of.....

309 replies

fireflytoo · 01/04/2008 17:45

...improving the standards of that school? There are often threads about all the issues revolving around so called good or bad schools. Many factors are blamed; class sizes, teacher child ratios, the middle class influence, sociological environments etc.

What I would like to know is whether anyone (especially anyone who gets cross at parents who move to good school areas or who pay for tutors etc) would willingly send their DC to a school where they know the DC would not nessecarily (sp?) get the best education....but where the school would benefit from having them there. (Presuming these said DC have supportive parents and the DC are quite capable of doing well.)

Hope I am not stepping on any toes here... I am genuinely interested in this question though.

OP posts:
terramum · 01/04/2008 19:14

No I would never send my child to a school that wouldn't provide the very best education possible. That would mean I wouldn't be fulfilling my role as a parent (education being the parent's responsibility).

TheFallenMadonna · 01/04/2008 19:16

I don't think parents need to be involved with the school so much, not at secondary level anyway. I think it is hard for a child to make choices which will take them out of the world they know and are comfortable with if they don't have the support of their parents and friends outside school though.

MrsGuyOfGisbourne · 01/04/2008 19:16

Jacanne - well said - this is absolutelu the reason some schools are better than others. The poor teachers always seem to be by implication the reason for failing schools - bks - it is the parental apathy. (And maybe a bit of the proportion of NUT teachers as well - shame the membership figures are not shown in the OFSTED reports.)
And Ed Balls did not nobly sacrifice his kids for the greater good - it says at the end that they moved becuase they thought htey would get better schools! Terrific judgement they showed then. Incompetent in their hypocrisy.

Blandmum · 01/04/2008 19:16

No I wouldn't. I went to a not-very-good-school and while I did get a reasonable education is was such bloody hard work. And many of the other kids were fairly vile because I wanted to work and get a good education.

I can think of a number of schools in the area that I live that I wouldn't willingly send my kids to, or work at myself.

saadia · 01/04/2008 19:19

Given the choice I wouldn't, I would do what is best for my dss. If I wanted to improve school standards I would volunteer etc in the poor school, I would not put that responsibility on young children.

Judy1234 · 01/04/2008 19:35

In private schools they don't have parents in all the time. In fact one thing I pay for is to avoid having to teach them in school, go on trips, volunteer, pay money for stuff etc. But this my wonderful middleclass children will rub off on lower class children like gold dust point therefore I need to sacrifice them on the altar of my principles and send them to a sink school is just laughable. It's only something a very few labour politicians do and then they often mess it up. I suppose leo blair is now free to go to Westminster underschool or wherever is the right school for a boy like him, daughter of a QC etc but they are still keeping him in the state sector albeit a choir school I think.

BetteNoir · 01/04/2008 19:43

Are you defining a "poor school" as one where the SAT results are lower than the national average?

If so, surely a parent of a 4 year-old child doesn't know how their child will perform in tests, and therefore whether their results will help to improve the overall scores of the school, or reduce them?

cory · 01/04/2008 19:47

Bit of an academic question this:

we cannot afford to pay school fees

and

dd is disabled so limited to the comprehensives that she can physically access

But I've never noticed that she is so much nicer than the other children in any way that her presence would be a one-way advantage.

Quattrocento · 01/04/2008 19:49

I personally would define any school that didn't have 100% A-C at GSCE for NT children as being a bit ropey. Unless they had blardy good reasons for it.

Why can't every NT sixteen year old get five GCSEs?

Blandmum · 01/04/2008 20:05

because many of them will not behave.

Orinoco · 01/04/2008 20:06

Message withdrawn

Blandmum · 01/04/2008 20:07

I teach NT kids in years 10 and 11 who will stop work the second I stop standing behind them. and I'm not exagerating.

and as I teach more than one child I have to move!

One such student wanted to do A level Biology, so he enjoyed the subject, just simply would not work at all. He got an E at GCSE

Quattrocento · 01/04/2008 20:08

Fark me

I looked through one of my DN's GSCE papers and no disrespect or anything but it was ridiculously simple. Every single NT child in the blardy country simply must be capable of getting 5 of those. And you're telling me that 2/3 of the country don't? And that the reason they don't is behaviour.

Fark me

SenoraPostrophe · 01/04/2008 20:11

quattrocento - what subject did you look through, and did you familiarise yourself with the marking scheme?

It's true that there are one or two GCSEs which are quite simple (IT is one), but most aren't really that easy, and some, eg English are arguably harder than O levels were because they require more thougtful arguments.

treacletart · 01/04/2008 20:12

Stuck to my socialist principles for about 6 weeks, but chickened out after a horrifying induction day at the school ds had been allocated to. I then fought tooth and nail to get him into another school (outstanding ofsted and much nearer). Very glad I did.

SenoraPostrophe · 01/04/2008 20:14

but anyway, regarding the op:

the distinction between good and poor schools is a false one imo. all schools have weak teachers in some subjects, but all children can do well in almost all schools with good support at home. the exceptions to that would be schools where discipline is completely out of control, really and no, I wouldn't willingly send my dcs to one of those. I would send them to schools that are poor in the sense that they are way down the league tables though.

Umlellala · 01/04/2008 20:15

"Why can't every NT sixteen year old get five GCSEs?"

Not sure what NT means but I would find it hard to get an A-C grade in Science (despite having achieved an A grade) if I took the exam next year in Germany. I taught in a secondary school in Tottenham with 70% of children who had English as an Additional Language (to varying degrees, with parents who spoke varying degrees of English). It is also difficult to concentrate on schoolwork if you have just come from a war-torn country and seen your relatives being murdered. You need to look at the context of the school. As long as the children who should be (ie putting in the work, and are capable too) getting A-C grades are, then it's not relevent to your child what the other children get.

I can't believe I agree with Xenia here though on how much other children benefit from our middle-class involvement. Its a bit patronising I feel. Instead, I would rather think my children will benefit hugely from a (life) education from being in a diverse social environment.

Umlellala · 01/04/2008 20:17

Oops, should clarify, it would be hard for me to get a good GCSE grade, BECAUSE I DON'T SPEAK GERMAN .

oregonianabroad · 01/04/2008 20:29

I agree re: the point about a diverse social environment, but what if the closest state school is not diverse at all?

We are in a new estate in a former pit village that was left to rot until very recently. The local school has a good ofsted, but mainly because it is good at bringing kids who are practically non-verbal up to an acceptable average. My ds1 is veeeeeeeeeery verbal, and also very naughty. I am panicking about this actually, as we can not afford private, and my dh refuses to even discuss the possibility due to his principles.

But things were much different for us: he went to a grammar school in a big city, and I was educated privately after being bullied at a state school (in a good area) in the US.

I really don't know what we'll do. The local school has a Sure Start Centre attached to it, and we tried it for nursery for a short time, leaving because I was very unhappy with the quality of staff and resources, even though it was all shiny and new. A friend of mine teaches in a neighbouring village and reports that most children start school without knowledge of how to hold a book, eat with cutlery, etc... And that parents are frequently barely literate themselves and apathetic as mentioned.

AbbeyA · 01/04/2008 20:34

No way! A DC gets one chance-it isn't a rehearsal! I would home educate rather than send them to a poor school.

Umlellala · 01/04/2008 20:45

Oreganian, I feel for you...
I would feel very strange if my dd went to an non-diverse school as it is not how I see life. But that is why I live where I do, cos I like the multiculturism and social variety you get in Inner London.

Is the school really that cut-and-dry? I am sure you would find other naughty children and other high achievers - tbh though, if the teachers can cope with challenging non-verbal children, I am sure they can cope with yours! Having said that, I was the only kid not from the council estate at my primary school and could read etc when I started - only one. But 'it never did me no harm' as they say, and I really, really enjoyed school. Surprisingly to some, I was never bullied for being clever. Was pretty confident and resilient, I suppose.

I think bullying happens in all schools

oregonianabroad · 01/04/2008 20:52

Thanks for the reassurance, Umlellala.

A very perceptive friend of mine commented that my hand-wringing on this issue has more to do with my experiences (of being different and bullied) than with what my son will have to deal with, but I'm still worried.

roisin · 01/04/2008 21:01

No I wouldn't.
I don't think a few "good kids" or "bright kids" can make any major difference to the general ethos of the school.

Anyone who has taught knows that 2 or 3 really disruptive students in the class can cause big problems, but can be dealt with.

If that number is 5 or 6 the class becomes totally unmanageable as a unit.

5 or 6 extra "good kids" (reliably heads down, working, behaving, being quiet) have virtually no impact on whole class 'behaviour'.

Umlellala · 01/04/2008 21:27

Hmmm... all children have the potential to be 'disruptive' (it's called being a kid and/or having no boundaries). A good parent/teacher manages this and can have positive relationships and a happy, working atmosphere. Of course, as Senora says, there are weak teachers in all schools - and you need a supportive, effective management team. But IMO a good school is not about the children (if that makes sense ).

Umlellala · 01/04/2008 21:30

Sorry, that was in response to "If that number is 5 or 6 the class becomes totally unmanageable as a unit".
Having taught in a PRU where your whole class is made up of the naughty ones - it is of course possible to manage this, and have happy, inspiring lessons!