Anyone else disappointed with their state choices?

[DrTinkle]

It's all so bloody average around here. Schools seem to move from satisfactory to good, grades are average, bullying and low aspiration a problem. High performing kids do less well than they would at independents. No grammar schools in the area and the church school creams off most of the advantaged kids with parents who can commit to 7 years church or synagogue attendance. Everything is so oversubscribed and competitive around here, it's basically overpopulated.
We're utterly stuck living here for work and childcare reasons. I don't want DD who is bright and very capable to have the poor choices I had so faced with paying for 6 years of schooling which won't be easy.
Just a bit sad looking at Facebook friends kids going to grammars or well performing comps and thinking it just ain't fair. Anyone else care to vent?

drtinkle what's even sadder for dds friend is that her parents do have aspirations and have made every possible effort, despite lack of money and time. But due to disability they can't even hope for a future financial change. Only hope is that with the GCSE's grades she'll get, 6th form bursars will over look the fact she won't get much choice in the subjects.

DrTinkle - for GCSE with nearly 70% at A*

That's very high even for a private school:

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/leaguetables/11825016/GCSE-results-2015-Independent-schools-table.html

Admittedly this list is missing a lot of schools but does show that a lot of private schools do not get results like this either.

*maybebabybee My school was overwhelmingly non-white ... Asian families in particular massively encourage educational achievement.

In my area these are the families who are paying huge amounts on private tuition and tuition centers. My DDs best friend last year (has just left to go private) was doing a two hour Abacus class on a Friday after school and had an English tutor and Maths tutor for one hour a week. An English tutor and Maths tutor (or Kumon) seems to be more the norm. though.

The "high achievers" category at a state school is likely to include a much wider spectrum of ability than a selective independent. What are the top 10-15% at the state school doing (have a look at the latest "news" report for GCSE/A Levels - schools will normally say that they got e.g. 30 children getting 8 or more As or something similar?

If the last OSTED says that high achievers are not being catered for it's also likely that the school may be addressing this - definitely worth asking the question of the school.

maybe I have to disagree with a couple of your points. Our DDs are at the local, very successful grammar. We moved here purely so they'd have a grammar education.

I'd be lying if I said there wasn't pressure to work hard and do very well in exams etc. And much emphasis is placed on academic excellence. But all the girls have already demonstrated they are academic and capable of working hard by dint of passing the 11+. So the 'pressure' placed on them isn't demanding something they're not perfectly capable of achieving.

As for wanting a child to be at a school with a wider societal mix? Our grammar selects purely on academic ability. Granted, many pupils are from middle class background but there is still a definite mix of pupils from other socio economic and ethnic backgroundsbackgrounds.

There isn't really a catchment for their grammar. Basically if you're clever enough you get in. Some pupils travel in from 15 miles away. The grammar doesn't select on the parents' ability to afford a house in a naice area.

If a clever child is at a comprehensive, and is in the top sets for most subjects then they won't get the chance to mix much with pupils in lower sets anyway. At our grammar they only set for maths. Aside from that all the girls do all their other lessons within their form groups, so mixing and working with the complete socio ecominc mix of pupils all day, every day.

I wouldn't be jealous of friends living in a grammar area.

We do, which is great for my academic DS who has just started at a brilliant superselective. And probably very shit for my less academic DD, who probably won't pass the 11+.

Grass is always greener......

Whore that's fine, we're allowed to disagree :)

I don't believe in academically selective schools. So I wouldn't send my DC to a grammar.

I don't know how it is now but in my school we were set for English, Maths, Science, Languages and History. Prior to year 9 we were only set for English, Maths and Science. So a lot of my friends had already been made outside my sets.

I'm not fussed about my DC attending school with a load of pupils of similar academic ability. I firmly believe academic achievement is not the be all and end all it's made out to be. As it happens, I got into a grammar school for my A levels and also got in to a good local state comp. I chose the comp because when I was interviewed at the grammar school, I found they focussed entirely on academics which I didn't like. I'd also wanted to do A level drama, which I wouldn't have been able to do there.

Please don't rely on results tables. Schools have ways of getting round these. For example, in some schools unless you are going to get an A you will be required to drop the subject. Many sit 8 GCSE's rather than the 10/11 at state schools. Also there is a lot of extra tuition going on at some selective private schools. (and the added pressure)

The academically selective school my DS is at has children taking 10 GCSEs. They dont drop subjects where the child isn't going to get an A. They provide the education and support required to get closer to that A instead.
They only take IGCSEs as they have stated that the normal GCSEs are too easy given the high ability of their pupils based on the entrance selection process. This year the school achieved 90% A*-A at IGCSE and similarly impressive results at A level. The school doesn't just focus on academic achievement either, it strongly encourages all students to enjoy a wide variety of extra curricular activities and to find things that they enjoy doing.
I am happy that my child no longer feels the need to hide his academic ability and is at a school where achievement is something to be proud of.

The flip side of that derek is that crap schools hide behind a %of pupils gaining 5 a-c. Without bothering to draw your attention to the fact they are nearly all c, or the fact those results aren't in subjects most people class as essential. Far easier for a state school to be crap than a private simply due to funding and having no say about who attends, long before you get to dodgy practices. And dds school doesn't do the dodgy practices you mention either, nor do the results of the other nearest big selective independents lead me to believe they are.

We were in the same position in our previous area. Knew we wouldn't want our children to go to local comp. So we moved before they started primary school. H changed jobs, I had a longer commute. Childcare, house prices etc probably double the cost of where we were before. But in our view it was worth it to have better choices.

And I'm also not sure why you say in your OP that church school "creams off most of the advantaged kids with parents who can commit to 7 yrs church attendance" ???? Anyone can attend church (whether you agree with going simply for a school place if you have no faith is a different matter).

Academic achievement at our grammar is rated very highly, yes. There's nothing wrong with that. It's like poo pooing a sports academy because they emphasise athletic ability. Er, yes?

But at our grammar emphasis is also placed on being rounded individuals, too. They have an excellent drama department. DofE is very popular. Pupils constantly fund raise for their adopted school Africa. They have numerous choirs and orchestras. They have a successful street dance squad. The list goes on and on.

It's certainly not all Latin and Calculus thank Heaven!

BTW, my secondary was a specialist sports academy and no one gave two stuffs about sport, it just meant we had a slightly larger gym than everyone else did

In any case I can only base my opinions on my own life experience and anecdotes from people I know. On that basis, I wouldn't send my DC to an academically selective or an independent school. I would rather they got one less A* and went to school with pupils of all abilities and from all social backgrounds.

No doubt this choice would not be right for everyone. But it is right for me.

mandy what I mean is the church schools have taken a large proportion of children with parents organised enough to commit to 7 years church attendance. That certainly is reflected in the socio-economic mix of the schools. The comps have 15% FSM and the church schools 2%.

maybe I don't think its as simple as to say they'll come out with one less A*. They could well come out with much less than that depending on the teaching, discipline and whether children and parents at the school are committed to education.

Iamnotloobrushphobic This year the school achieved 90% A-A at IGCSE*

Very impressive, within the top 30 independent schools in the country?

www.best-schools.co.uk/uk-school-league-tables/gcse-grades/

Still not sure what point you're trying to make. (Might be me being dense!). But if you're saying its just a question of being more "organised" as you put it, why couldn't you have done that in order to avoid the comp?

The idea that grammars have a rich socio economic mix is VERY far from my experience.

About 85% are from solid MC backgrounds, the remaining 15% come from cultures where education is more highly valued.

Agree Wiry.

Tinkle no I was being simplistic.

I still stand by my earlier view that bright kids with parents who encourage then tend to do well wherever. There are exceptions obviously. And maybe if I had gone to a private school I would have got slightly better GCSE's, or done the DoE, or got into Oxbridge. Would I go back and change it? No, I wouldn't. My experience of a crappy state comp IME gave me a very varied education, a good group of friends and a previously unknown ability to stand up for myself.

I am not a competitive person, nor someone who thrives in a highly pressured environment. Therefore I don't think I would have been happy at an indie or a grammar.

Also as a side note I think it's a total myth that bullying is worse in state schools. There is bullying in all schools. In fact there's another thread running right now where someone's DD is getting badly bullied at an all-girl's indie.

Some kids will get bullied at independent/grammars, and some kids won't. And some kids will get bullied at state school, and some kids won't.

Very impressive, within the top 30 independent schools in the country?

Yes, it is known for being one of the top performing schools in the country. I don't think it is actually on the league tables though because it does IGCSEs instead of GCSEs and therefore doesn't qualify for most league tables. The school did state (more than 5 years ago) that they no longer wanted to feature on league tables as they don't agree with league tables. I think the fact that they opt out of league tables despite the fact that they would rank very highly is a plus point IMO.

They also have one of the best bursary policies in the country and around 20% of pupils are in receipt of a bursary, some a full 100% bursary. It features in the recently published top ten best value off money independent schools based on a combination of its excellent academic results and it's fee structure (it's fees are much lower than most around the country).

mandy I won't fake religion just to get into a school. My point was there are no grammars in the area and the only high performing schools are church, I'm guessing part of the reason they perform well is they select. Church goers are richer, hence 2% FSM at both church schools and 15% at the non selective comps in the area. Richer people are advantaged at school.

" Aside from that all the girls do all their other lessons within their form groups, so mixing and working with the complete socio ecominc mix of pupils all day, every day."

What, at a grammar school?

maybe I think perhaps your take on crappy is different to what many people mean. A school like yours where all pupils are supported isn't crappy in my opinion, regardless of where they come in gcse league tables or what ofsted say. It sounds the equivalent of Dds primary, which I can't praise enough.
But would you really choose a comprehensive that on open day made it clear they had no intention of teaching your dc to an appropriate level because it was inconvenient, where statemented 1to1s are hijacked for riot control in other classrooms, kids with sn are dumped to try their chances, where your academic child would be encouraged by staff to take vocational subjects over the academic ones they like, where bullying often ends in police involvement, where any child certain to hit the pass rate, or one that won't get near it will be ignored cos all they care about is a % of c grades in any old subject, and so on. That's what I mean by crappy.