7+ entry from state primary schools.

[Pyrrah]

Hi everyone,

I've been reading my way through as many threads as possible but still have a few questions!

I'm probably thinking way too far ahead - DD turns 3 in May - but having nearly been caught out by applications for primary school nursery class last autumn, I guess it's better to know well in advance and then relax for a few years rather than missing the boat!

Anyway, ideally we'd like to send DD to somewhere like CLSG. Both DH and I went to selective private schools, I also went to a fiercely academic hot-housing prep school and did CE at 13.

We live in central SE London and moving is not in the equation. There are no real options for prep schools in the area - we also don't have a car and we both work. The primary schools round here are also pretty dire (there is one great one but we don't have a hope of hell of getting in as we're too far away and it's very popular.

So, I'm looking at the choice of a not great non-denominational, a not so great CofE and 2 RC primaries. We're both pretty staunch atheists, but will be opting for the CofE as the least bad option - and at least very close by.

DD is currently at a private nursery. They're very play-based and don't 'teach' which is what I was looking for. DD is very bright and I don't want her bored rigid before she even gets to school.

The nursery called me in last week to say that they are having a few issues where DD doesn't want to play with the other kids in her age-group and will only play with the 4 year olds. She's at the same level as them in terms of verbal development and a lot of what she can do so they want to move her to doing activities with the 4 year-olds rather than the 2 year-olds.

I'm frankly terrified - both DH, I and my youngest sister went to school 2 years early and we all paid the price in terms of being academically capable of easily holding our own but emotionally way behind. However I am also terrified of having a child who becomes bored and looks for alternative entertainment/stops finding learning fun!

I put DD's name down for the CofE primary's nursery class and if we get a place she will go there from September. The hope is then to get her in the following year for Primary. The Ofsted reports over the last 5 years have all made a point of saying that they don't cater for bright children.

As we don't have any decent primary level private schools around here, we are coming to the conclusion that 7+ might be fairer and a better choice than 11+.

However, I have no experience of getting selective places from a state primary (and a not good one at that). From what I have matched up from the exam papers and the primary's curriculum, the primary is already way behind in terms of syllabus by that age.

I know schools all say not to tutor - and that is fine, but I KNOW the standard that a really top prep-school is working at, and it is a million miles away from what DD will get down the road. Yet she will be competing against children from these schools. We also can't really tell the primary what we are planning or ask for help from them.

If we are going to go down the tutoring route, I'm wondering if it's better to start early and just tick along with it right through to the exams, or to do an intensive blitz in the final 6 months. Should we look at things like Kumon (amazingly there is one in the area)?

This probably sounds totally ludicrous to most people and obviously if as she grows up it becomes apparent that DD is either not that way inclined or would perhaps do better not in a high-octane academic environment we will adjust accordingly - but for now she appears to be very similar in temperament and potential ability to my husband and I and would therefore probably thrive.

Would love to hear from anyone who had BTDT - got their child into a school such as CLGS, SPGS, JAGS or similar from a very 3rd rate primary school.

(Apologies for novel...)

Frogs, do you live in an area with decent state options at primary or secondary level?

What would you class as an acceptable 5 GCSE's incl. English and Maths % rate to be (genuine question as I have no idea what it would be reckoned to be in your average good state school?)

Round here most of the other mothers I have spoken to move to another area when it comes to sending their children to school. Housing is very much council or young professional flats - there aren't really houses with gardens so anyone with more than one or two children pretty much has to move out of the area.

The mother of one of the little girls who I had got to know quite well at my daughter's nursery is from Romania and has been here for 3 years with her husband. I bumped into her last week when she told me that they were moving to Surrey this week as the primary schools were so much better.

Another mother who I got to know as we both had the same make of pram on the bus was telling me that they moved here 2 years ago for her husband's job but she travels over an hour morning and evening to take/collect her daughter from the extremely good state primary she was at in North London.

The money for us is going to be very tight, but I suppose I'm after a great all-round education as much as good exam results - I'm not wanting to buy a certain class of friend or anything of that sort, just a good general knowledge, aspirational classmates, interested teachers etc.

My dc's schools are not Knife Crime High, but are not so fashionable that people move house/fake religion/sell their grandmother to get into them. Well actually we do have two local primaries and one local secondary like that, but they are not the ones my dc attend.

My ds's secondary had 61% of pupils get 5 or more A*-C incl. English and Maths, if that helps? Dd's school was a bit higher than that (lots of single-sex schools round our way, hence why they're not all at the same school). The primary my youngest child attends got 80% level 4 or above, but it fluctuates a lot from year to year depending on the cohort.

Those scores are pretty good for a very mixed intake, but not the kind of results that will hit the headlines. The point is that when you look at a school's results you need to look at the grades achieved by the group of pupils that correspond's to your child's ability level, rather than just the headline results. So if you are assuming that your child is in the top 10% or so of the range, you'd need to look at the top 10% of the school's results rather than just the figures for teh whole yeargroup, which in a true comprehensive will span an enormous range, making the overall stats a bit meaningless.

If School X has a reasonable number of kids getting 7 or 8 As and A (several boys at my ds's Ofsted 'good' but not outstanding comp got 10 or so straight A last summer) then there's no reason to assume your child will not be equally capable of achieving those kinds of results. The fact that there are other dc who will struggle to get 5 C grades is not really relevant unless your child is in that lowest ability group. Does that make sense? Conversely, if School Y's top achievers were getting no more than a smattering of As with the rest a mixture of Bs and Cs, then I would probably infer that the school for some reason either have a very low proportion of high achievers or (more probably) are not really doing their best by the more able children. The overall headline % of 5 A-C grades will not necessarily reflect what the top end of the cohort are achieving: I'd prefer a school that had lower overall results but a good handful of kids at the top getting straight As over one that had a higher % of 5A-C but didn't have a critical mass of kids at the top end getting the kinds of results that will make the UCAS selectors sit up and take notice.

Similarly for primary school results, you need to look at the % of Level 5 results, rather than just the Level 4 results on which the league tables are based. If a school has a reasonable number of L5s then that means they have a good proportion of higher achieving dc and are doing well by those children, even if there is a core of dc who are not reaching L4 .

I'm not presuming to tell anyone what choices they should make, btw, just pointing out an alternative way of looking at the statistics, and saying that , really, although getting a child into the 'right' school can seem like a massive make or break thing when they are tiny, it probably doesn't matter as much as you fear, provided that the school is not truly terrible and they are well-supported at home.

Get yourself a copy of John O'Farrell's book "May Contain Nuts" and read it well. The stereotypes are really not that exaggerated. Some people go absolutely loop the loop over school entry. That way madness lies. You really don't want to get sucked that way of thinking if you can help it.

I would agree with Frogs and I know a bit about schools, through my work. There are a lot of excellent state secondaries and primaries in London, far more so than in many other parts of the country.

The reason I'm opting out for my dd are complex and involve her mild dyspraxia (mild SEN is not so well supported by the state system as severe SEN) and distance, the private school I'm sending her to is also the closest school to our house. We also can afford it. I have another dc I may well keep in the state system all the way through, as his needs are very different.

OP, I don't think you can say what's an acceptable 5 GCSE pass rate without looking at the school's intake. You need to know the value added, that is easily the most important thing about a school. I also do think you need to wait until your child is actually at primary before writing the system off - you seem already to be discounting it, on the basis of Ofsted reports and what some mothers have told you, but the thing that matters with a school is your gut instinct.You may be pleasantly surprised when you go and look at the places you're already writing off. If the Ofsteds for your local schools say they don't make enough provision for bright children, then the schools will be specifically tackling that issue to appease Ofsted next time, so that's a plus point for you.

I also think you're massively overthinking a reference that may or may not be written in 2016 or whenever it will be. Not all private schools support the 7 plus either and many won't write references for their pupils either. The schools know that and take that into account. As for those of you worrying about breaking the news to the head - the head is a professional, he or she knows an alternative sector exists and they should take your news professionally. That's life.

I also agree with whoever said 7 plus is a gamble because it's impossible to rely on a child of (usually) 6 to perform on the day. That's why you shouldn't set your heart on any one school, have a back-up plan and not take it too much to heart if it doesn't work out. There are plenty more chances ahead.

Oh, frogs and I cross posted - she explained how to read the results much better and at greater length than I did.

So much wisdom here about stats, I bow to it. I'm in Frogs' neck of the woods (approx) and people do crazy things like move house temporarily to be in the catchment of the primary with 100% level 4s as opposed to the one with, say, 85%. It's as if they're reading it as the percentage result that their child will get in an exam and we all remember from school that 100 is better than 85. When of course that's madness because it's all about how your child does in reaching their own potential.
I heard on r4 (natch) that the school only accounts for 10% of educational outcome (ie the rest is ethnicity, gender, level of parental education and input etc) so really people shouldn't worry between basically similar schools.
Frogs - I've always been of a mind to go state until 11 and then private day, but question this having seen all the advantages that my children have had in their local community school. What made you decide to stick to state having done the rounds?

Hi Polly (near namesake, I'm PollyMorfic, intermittently).

I can't pretend that the money didn't concentrate our minds. I think in the end I couldn't see that the value added by the private options was worth £15k a year. The facilities are nicer, obviously, and they have a wider range of extracurricular things going on. But there are lots of options in London for doing activities out of school, and in some ways it's good for them to develop new social circles and a bit of independence through their out-of-school stuff, rather than having it all on tap at school. I also do like the extra groundedness that comes from working your way through a 'normal' school, and knowing that you have ownership of your achievements and haven't had to have advantages 'bought' for you.

I think Polly is spot on about the tendency to read the stats as the probability of your child reaching a particular standard, ie. the misapprehension that if 50% of a cohort get L4 that somehow equates to a 50% chance of my child achieving that level. And of course the stats don't tell you that at all, they tell you about what kind of intake a school has and what kind of job they're doing with the kids that go there. You can't look at either of those in isolation.

So our local 'honeypot' school has 100% of kids getting Level 4, and 52% Level 5. People move house, rent flats, lie and cheat to get in. I have overheard parents of newborns sitting in cafes discussing their strategies for getting their child in. The catchment area consists predominantly of nice big Victorian houses in the £1M+ bracket, and the school's intake reflects the local area and the school's perceived desirability. My youngest child's school otoh last year had 80% of kids getting Level 4 and 28% getting Level 5 (which is lower than average for them, but no matter). The intake consists largely of kids who live on the local estates, with a smattering of middle class families who chose the school because they like the atmosphere and are relieved that all the really pushy and neurotic parents have gone elsewhere.

Which school is doing better? Frankly most of the kids in the first school would get L5 if they spent their school hours playing in the mud instead of sitting in lessons, because the parents would make damn sure they were up to speed, and get them tutors if they weren't. Our school has a higher than average proportion of Free school meals, dc from ethnic minorities, and dc with English as a 2nd language. The parents do want the best for their kids, but most would have little idea of how to put that into practice in educational terms, so the results the school achieves are a much closer reflection of what the teachers are putting in.

What neither set of stats tells you is how well any given child will do in the school. But following the logic in my earlier post, assuming that my child is likely to be in the top 10% of the school's ability range, and that the top 20%+ in both schools are getting level 5, then my child's chance of getting level 5 would be equal in either school, or arguably even slightly higher in the school wtih the less advantaged intake that have to work harder to get their dc to that level.

The same logic would apply to GCSE results: as long as there's a decent-sized group of high achievers being supported to get the kinds of grades that will enable them to go a decent university, then there's no reason to assume that your child will not be one of those high achievers. A school with a lower % of dc reaching a particular arbitrary benchmark does not equate to an increased chance of your particular child ending up with 2 BTECs in advanced car thieving, and a career as a north London drug dealer (though to hear some parents talk, you could be forgiven for thinking it did).

PS I have changed the % of the results very slightly to avoid identification of specific schools, to save anyone trying to work it out.

I think I've complimented your views as Pollymorfic too! Sad fan-girl that I am. I think I also know which honeypot primary you talk of.
Very interesting thoughts and ones which I shall be mulling over in a few years' time no doubt.
Arggh.

I do think there is a lot of panic and scaremongering about state schools and I say that as a parent who actively chose the private sector over our local 'outstanding' graded primary school.

As has been mentioned, you cannot look at SATs or GCSEs in isolation. You need to consider the value added at that school. That is one of my biggest issues with many outstanding graded schools in nice leafy areas. Many of them have an intake who can practically all read on entry and who actually need very little input to reach L4 at Y6. I have taught in schools ranging from those in SM to those graded outstanding. Of the two outstanding schools I taught in, one truly was outstanding and the other was dull, uninspiring and obsessive about SATs results. I would have chosen the excellent 'satisfactory' graded school I taught in where the teachers were motivated and the lessons were stimulating over aforementioned one anyday for my children. It was stuck with satisfactory, however, due to poor SATs results. Never mind that many kids arrived in Reception with dummies, unable to string sentences together let alone reading...

My kids are bright. DD1, exceptionally so. Yet I wouldn't have been worried about them in a state school just because it wasn't graded good or outstanding. I think it's easy when theyre little to be panicked and think your precious, bright child will be left to drown or die of boredom in the state sector. This is rarely the case. We chose private to avoid the exam hothouse of our local primary. I worried that my exceptionally bright DD1 would be pushed down some narrow academic path and made to feel that was her only option. DH, who is Oxbridge himself, was even more keen to ensure that her schooling wasn't all based around how clever she was.

I'm rambling now but I guess what Im saying is not to be too worried that a state infant school will fail to meet her needs or to assume that her only needs will be academic. Nor to be too caught up in the 'If you don't get them in now you'll never get them in' or the 'If they spend the infants in the state sector they'll never catch up' school of thought as really, most of it is hype.

Oh and do double check the 'points' thing for your own peace of mind. As although a VA CofE or RC school can give credit for Church attendance Ive never heard of an LEA which allows attendance at the nursery class to give priority for Reception class. Good luck

I should have read Frogs' most recent post before posting. She explains the 'Lies, Damn lies and statistics' thing well.

This was what was on the Admissions form I was given for the school with the nursery... am I reading it correctly?

Criteria

1. Children in Public care (looked after children) (see note a)

2. Children with an exceptional and professionally supported medical or social need for a place at this school. This must be supported by written evidence at the time of application e.g. from a specialist health professional, social worker or other care professional. The evidence must set out the reasons why this school is the most suitable school and the difficulties that would be caused if the child has to attend another school. (see note b)

3. Children whose parent/carer attends regular worship either weekly, or at least twice per month in the past year, at one of the three contributory parish churches. (A signed supporting statement is required from the parish priest; please ask the school for a supplementary form.)

4. Children whose parent/carer attend regular worship either weekly or at least twice per month in the past year at a church or chapel of a Christian denomination affiliated to Churches Together in England who live within the parish. (A signed supporting statement is required from the minister; please ask the school for a supplementary form.)

5. Children who at the point of admission have brothers, sisters, step/half brothers/sisters or foster/adopted brothers/sisters already in the school.

6. At the time of application children who are attending the Nursery class and are applying for a reception place.

7. Any remaining places will be allocated in order of nearness of home by straight line to the school entrance gate in Beatson Walk.

Each of the criteria is given points as follows:

Criteria 1 (refer to note a) = 20 points
Criteria 2 (refer to note b) = 8 points
Criteria 3 = 4 points
Criteria 4 = 3 points
Criteria 5 = 2 points
Criteria 6 = 2 points

Thank you so much for explaining the statistics thing - makes so much more sense now!

How do you go about finding out how the top 10% did, or at Primary level how many children achieved L3 at KS1 and L5 at KS2? Are there lists available or does one ask the schools?

I'm going to go and look round a whole load of schools over the next few months. I've seen one so far and despite the facilities being nice, my gut reaction was a definite no - and I had gone in thinking it might have been my top choice.

We have no option other than state primary so I intend to be positive - I want DD to be happy and I have no love for people who constantly moan about how crap x, y or z is. I also have no illusions about the grass always bein greener - my parents removed my siblings from a number of prep schools because they were unhappy. I'd go for a nice state primary over a 2nd rate private prep any day.

I'm afraid I making the most of this thread and all those who have BTDT and have more experience to ask all the worst-case scenarios ... much prefer to ask about reports from head-teachers online than have the same discussion with either the school I'm looking at going to or leaving from if that makes sense!

Will definitely buy the book - sounds horrific. :o

Most of the stats are here: BBC league tables.

In the little box on the right hand side, select 'primary schools', then the Local Authority you're interested in, then click go. It brings up the schools in alphabetical order, but you can click on any of the column headers to order by that as well. 'Higher level pupils' is the % of level 5s. If you order by any of the academic indicators, you will see very quickly that the schools with the best results are generally the ones in the m/c areas. No surprise there.

I suspect that there's some place deep within the black heart of the Dept of Education website where you can get stats on things like FSM, % of SN, % ESL etc, if you really want to know.

Do also bear in mind that results fluctuate from year to year depending on the cohort, and that this will particularly affect small schools with one form of entry - if a particular Y6 group happens to have, for eg, two pupils recently arrived in the country with no English, and one with SN but not yet statemented, their results will instantly go down by 10%, however well the rest of the pupils have been taught.

Sorry, yes, VC and RC Church schools have far more control over their own admissions. However, whilst they are allowed to consider church attendance with applications they are still discouraged from using nursery attendance to affect Reception applications. I thought they had been banned from doing so as it descriminated against working parents but obviously they government haven't gone that far.

The league tables were always mis-leading because they based the places on Level 4s. So the nice leafy school would get 95%+ L4s without even trying but perhaps only get 30% L5s. Whereas, the vibrant school in the more challenging area might only get 70% L4s but of those kids, 50% of them actually got L5. So which school is actually stretching the more able? Yep, the one much further down the league table.

So if I'm looking at a school and it says:

Expected % English and Maths - 54%

Higher Level % - 4%

It's not a great result, correct?

Cripes, running down the list they all look worse than they did before if I'm reading it correctly...

Our first choice school is getting just over 50% on the expected English & Maths and a 20% Higher Level... higher than anything else in the catchment area.

The first one I wrote out was our 3rd choice....

No, those are not great results. 4% might be just one child, depending on the size of the school. 20% higher level is okay, I think, though I would assume the intake was quite challenging.

Which borough are you in?

The first is a school with an intake of 60, the second has an intake of only 20 and is the CofE.

I'm in Southwark - not the middle-class bits...

The really good ones we are either too far out of the furthest distance ever granted or they are faith schools which we would fail to get onto on the grounds of both lack of faith faith or distance...

And given that they are doubling the entry at one of the closer not great ones due to increased numbers of children I can't see that distances will get larger.

On the thing of Ofsted report saying they don't cater well for more able children, I too thought that was a good thing as they would pull their socks up - but the last 3 reports have all said the same thing...

I think it will probably come down to gut instinct when I look round.