If it's so offensive to suggest you don't want your children to go to school with "rough" kids, why are schools in "good" areas always oversubscribed?

[lisbey]

It seems to me that the main difference in the results a school achieves is the "quality" (sorry know that's not the right word, but can't think of another one) of their intake and the parents of those children.

However, whenever someone on here suggests that they'd prefer their kids not to mix with the sportswear clad council house kids, they are universally flamed.

Who then is fuelling the increased demand for houses close to schools that are well away from those children?

BTW I live in a private house, close to a council estate and my DCs go to a school where 40% have free school meals. I have been delighted with the school and it gets decent OFSTEAD reports, but does badly in league tables, which is why there are very few families living in the privately owned "family homes" on this estate and why they are c. 25% cheaper than a similar house in the next town.

Most people will send their child to the best school that they are able to. If they can send their child to a school they perceive to be nice, and it is in a good neighbourhood, then so be it.

Being educated with a critical mass of motivated, aspirational children is probably a good indicator of achievement. Perhaps these type of children are over-represented in expensive areas and under-represented in poorer areas?

this is our position riven

we are in catchment for a nice enough infant school which then feeds into an underperforming not nice junior school

the area itself is quite mixed in terms of home ownership, where we are/infant school is is homeowners, there might be some estates where the junior school is

(not sure, it is miles away)

Like chibi, I grew up in a country where all schools were similar. It's because cleaner lived next door to doctor, people weren't segregated geographically, like here. Moreover, children prospects weren't really dependent on their parents pushiness or status, but rather on their own abilities and aspirations. Tutoring or homework help was only for struggling kids. All the knowledge we needed to get to good universities we gained at school (any school).

I have to admit I'm a bit lost and when it comes to the complex art of schooling in this country.

state education in this country is extremely patchy.
Some are really very good, others very poor. There is no consistency.
Many many measures and billions of pounds have been introduced to deal with this, but unfortunately the fact remains that some children have a much better start than others.

As a child I went to Filton Avenue school (Bristol!) which my parents chose over Horfield CE because, "the children looked happy and held the door open for visitors". When I became a teacher I actively sought out a London school that reminded me of Filton Avenue in terms of intake, ethos and passionate teachers and found it; I spent 6 happy years at my first school which MC families wouldn't touch with a barge-pole on the grounds of it being too rough/full of EAL children but where the important things (the children's needs!) came first.

Riven that is . Glad the new government is giving teachers powers to stop and search and be able to kick (not literaly!) kids out of class if they are disruptive.

I care what high school is like for kids.Any one who says they don't prob had a great time as a teenager, with lovely supportive parents, and would prob find they want exactly that for their DC. I moved abroad to bring kids up in a 'simpler' life. short story, moved back as couldn't cope with what was basically a lack of education and quite high deprivation for most in 'idylic' place. Was raised near Moss side, and went to school inner city, in a school that was 98% non british, where it was uncool to be clever. Sorry, if I'm a snob, but want better for mine than was offered to me.

Getting fed up of hearing the assumption that council house = thick and badly behaved and parents who don't care.

My ds who is 9 is exceptionally bright and has been accelarated several years at school. As his mother I care a lot about his education, as do my neighbours on this council estate.

I really hope that the children of some on here don't pick up the nasty attitude of their parents. Shame on you.

I am still incredibly annoyed with my sister for sending her DS to a terrible school in South London. He was attacked so often that in the end he refused to go, became a virtual recluse and got no GCSEs at all.

He is now doing A levels self-taught. He learned to pay 4 musical instruments by ear and is a talented sportsman and just by talking to him I can tell he clearly should go to unversity. He won't though because his education has been trashed by a 'rough' state school where stabbings, gangs and drugs were an every day reality.

No child should have to go through that.

Why is it ok for "poor" families to be hypocrites, then?

So if you live on the proverbial council estate, and let's say you qualify as a "pupil premium" student and can go off to the better-performing comprehensive in the next town, isn't the problem being perpetuated?

There's all this talk of "poor bright kids" being elbowed out of the good schools by catchment areas, but what of the poor average kid, or the poor downright thick kid?

Also so many people I know are "first generation middle class". Why are we now all such evil people for wanting to live in decent houses in decent areas?

I have recently moved to a twee village. All my neighbours either privately educate from nursery or put them in the twee primary which and then onto an independent. My dd still goes to the rough, disruptive primary. The difference between state schools is shocking. My dd has been bullied for being both posh and poor! She has dodged chairs flying across the room and I have to do work with her at home to make up for what does no get done in the classroom. Whoever said segregation above has it spot on. Luckily my dd is a tough little cookie and can cope.