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?

Sorry - didn't mean to offend or be generalist. OP said in her original post that she was stuck for childcare and work reasons and then said in a later post that children who went to the local church school were there because their parents had been organised enough to commit to 7 years attendance.

My point was that other people make sacrifices for education - whether that be "finding faith" for 7 years, changing jobs etc. But of course I realise that is more difficult for some that others.

To me finding God for 7 years would be more of a dishonesty than a sacrifice and I'm not prepared to play that game. Work wise we are stuck where we are and caring for elderly parent nearby plus childcare considerations. A move isn't possible for us and would require greater sacrifices than paying school fees.

Bert the high attainers are not quite where they should be according to the % achieving expectations in English and Maths. Unfortunately.

What do you mean by "not quite"?

MumTryingHerBest - "With regard to attending church, pretty pointless if the school is oversubscribed (which many faith schools are) and you fall outside the distance cut off (which for many high performing schools is very small, 224 metres for my nearest secondary...)."

This statement is not correct at all - one of the main reasons that some popular faith schools are so successful, high achieving and oversubscribed is because their catchment areas are huge, with pupils coming from up to 15-20 miles away. These popular faith schools are flooded with applications from organised, middle class families willing to send their dc on long bus and train journeys (with associated costs) in order to access high quality education with like-minded people. By creating a much bigger pool of applicants, and introducing a number of admissions hurdles, eg weekly church attendance for 5 years (come rain/shine/illness/holiday), baptism, confirmation, supplementary forms, reference forms, banding tests, aptitude tests and in the case of some schools, services to the church, these schools raise the quality of their intake; committed, knowledgeable families living further away tick more boxes on the application form than many of the local population of church goers. The London Oratory School does not have a catchment area; only 3.2% of pupils live within 1 km, and only 29% live within 5 km - 3% live more than 20km away. Michael Gove lived 4 miles away from The Grey Coat Hospital School when his daughter gained a place, however he met the church attendance criteria very well.

Why does it have to be "flooded with applications from organised middle class families"???

Don't get me wrong, of course there are middle class families who see church schools as alternatives to private school fees but equally, there are families (from all sorts of social backgrounds) that live further afield for whom the church school is the nearest church school and welcome the ethos / spirituality of a church school. The reason why the catchment is so big is that there is generally not a church high school in every small town / village.

My post was in reply to MumTryingHerBest re the most oversubscribed faith schools. Not all church schools are high achieving or oversubscribed of course. My example schools are located in Central London - there is no need to extend the catchment areas into the Home Counties, although of course these catchment areas may be historic. The highest achieving schools are often not 'the nearest church school' (or even the 10th nearest in some cases) for many applicants but applications from middle class families who 'jump through all the hoops' and pay the travel costs (we know several families paying £100 per month per child for the school bus to a church school, bypassing an 'average' church school on the way) will be denying places to poorer dc living closer. There are similar examples in other large towns and cities, e.g. Coloma Convent School in Croydon.

I understand that - the point I was trying to make was that the parent bussing the child in at a cost of £100 might be doing so because they specifically want a church school - irrespective of performance. It might be that they're middle class pushy parents but also might be a lower working class making sacrifices to pay the travel costs to get to a religious school.

I've just been taken aback at the sweeping generalisations about families at church schools. London might be an anomaly (always seems to be on MN ).

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/10322429/State-schools-the-top-50-most-socially-exclusive.html

I'm just being pragmatic - I'm pleased for my middle class friends who can access good schools by attending church every week;we pay school fees instead to access the type of education that appeals to us.

I think there is a huge gap between being eligible for free school meals and middle class!! What about all the ordinary working people in between - or are you suggesting that if you're not entitled to FSM you're automatically middle class??

The point is not so much rich children/poor children- although poverty and the educational level attained by your mother are the two most reliable indicators of academic achievement or lack of it. The issue with Church schools is that, if they are oversubscribed (and it is only if they are oversubscribed that they achieve better than a similar non faith school) you have to jump through hoops to get your child in. And that means you have to be switched on, organised, literate, capable of understanding the system and committed to your child's education. Otherwise you won't realise about the hoops, or won't have the time and/or ability and/or inclination to jump through them.

Which means that oversubscribed Church schools have a pre selected group of families of the type whose children tend to do well. The Christian ethos thing is a smoke screen. It's actually back door selection.

I don't agree. You might simply be a Christian who has been attending church as part of your normal life.

No hoop jumping required.

As I said upthread, I am sure hoop jumping goes on but the sweeping generalisations about church schools are not fair.

Clavinova Mon MumTryingHerBest - "With regard to attending church, pretty pointless if the school is oversubscribed (which many faith schools are) and you fall outside the distance cut off (which for many high performing schools is very small, 224 metres for my nearest secondary...)."

This statement is not correct at all - one of the main reasons that some popular faith schools are so successful, high achieving and oversubscribed is because their catchment areas are huge, with pupils coming from up to 15-20 miles away.

Interesting, so if they are over subscribed with families meeting all the criteria, what tie breaker are they using to decide who gets in?

I understand that siblings may live many miles from the school. However, first-borns not so much. It was for this very reason that one of my local faith schools removed the sibling rule.

Maybe this was the only faith school in the country with the problem?

This programme has a family who lost out to a school place due to a shrinking catchment for a faith school (towards the end):

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0689z66/panorama-the-schools-scandal-playing-the-system

"I don't agree. You might simply be a Christian who has been attending church as part of your normal life."

Yes of course you might. But getting yourself and your children to Church punctually on a regular basis says something about organisation and commitment and a family structure that precludes a lot of people.

Bertrand, out of interest why is it academic achievement by your mother ?

I don't know- maybe because children tend to see more of their mothers in the early years?

In which case if mother is being used as a convenient shorthand I could see that, rather than she is your female biological parent. Thanks.

I always find it hilarious when people trot out the line a church school is all about the religion. My dd went to the primary attached to a church. Undersubscribed, slated by ofsted and on a council estate when I actively chose it and no religious criteria for places. Most of the churches congregation at the time chose local outstanding non denominational primaries if they couldn't get places at further away outstanding church ones. They also fell over themselves in their battle to get enough points to get a place at the excellent church secondary. And funnily enough by the time dd got halfway through primary, and it got a reputation for being an excellent school, it suddenly got oversubscribed, with some parents trying to get religious criteria reintroduced.
I've heard the same thing about other church schools too. Next door lea has a church secondary that is also undersubscribed. Funny that parents who don't get a place at the excellent church school don't seem that bothered about religion when it comes to going there.
So with the exception of a very small minority, I call bollocks on people choosing a church school for the religious education.

darkling I suspect if the same reseacrh were being done today, the education levels of both parents would play a part as traditional gender roles become less common.

Shegot, that was exactly what was behind my question, is this a biological/genetic thing or to do with the roles within the family, however that family is made up.

The thing with State schools is that you get out what you put in : if you and your kids try to get the most of as much as possible, you will.

Any non selective school will always look worse on paper than a selective ( by god, gonads, cash or random exam) but that does not mean any individual pupil will do worse.

And please do not worry about the IGCSE's are harder myth : state schools use them to drag D grade students into the C grade because they are simpler to pass

That's not exactly a notion that applies only to state schools.

Private schools require pupils to fully engage to get the most out if them. No one will force them to join the netball team or attend the Oxbridge meetings or revise etc.

There are lots and lots of opportunities but pupils have to grasp them.

Quite true,
but in private schools, chances are that the vast bulk of parents are motivated as they are coughing up the cash

whereas in state schools - particularly of the non selective variety - motivated parents and children may be in the minority

I think most parents are quite supportive? But I agree that having coughed up a wedge concentrated the mind .

That said, there is always the minority that thinks paying relieves you of having to do much ( I wish ).

"I think most parents are quite supportive?"

Would you be interested in knowing the % of parents who come to Parent's Evening in ds's school?

I think most parents are quite supportive
When I stood as a parent governor, election turnout was under 10%