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?

Triple science means 3 separate sciences-if it's listed as an option that probably means that double is core.

Surprised at 8- but many schools do 9. My dd went to a very high achieving school where they did 9, but they were expected to do other things as well. The thinking was that they don't need to do more than 9, so use the time for other, more interesting things. Beware schools that do millions- up until recently it was possible to fudge figures by getting bright children doing lots of GCSEs over years 10 and 11 to up the number of A*s and As. Shouldn't happen any more, though.

I'm certainly not anti comprehensive. I'm against the fact that currently some people don't have access to ones that are adequate.
In terms of average ability, my dds primary was probably more comparable to a secondary modern than a comp. Yet because it was a great school, even if dd didn't get the same as if she was in an equal ability peer group, she still got a suitable education and it was balanced out by all the benefits of a mixed ability peer group. I'd call a secondary with the same intake and principles suitable for her too. Unfortunately not all comprehensives are like that.
Able kids don't have more right to a suitable education. Just an equal right. And certainly they don't have a duty to sacrifice the chance to achieve their personal best to improve the standards of others. I wouldn't expect a lone average achiever to be ignored because the majority work at a high level and that one average kid is slowing them down, and nor would I accept it in reverse. It takes a good school to differentiate across an ability range. And if you can't get that, then you are left with needing a school with a similar cohort.

MumTryingHerBest " This programme has a family who lost out to a school place due to a shrinking catchment for a faith school."

I've only just had a chance to watch this programme - why am I not surprised that the privately educated doctor's wife, living in a 1.5 million pound home, metres away from an outstanding (non-church) state primary school (with 'like-minded' parents - her words) secured a place for her children and the young black woman, living in a less desirable road nearby did not?

The programme was somewhat misleading though - the young black woman did not miss out on her nearest C of E primary school because of shrinking catchments or 'pew jumpers' because the school concerned was in fact her 3rd or 4th nearest C of E primary school, although it was the one she wanted. Also, the pan of this school increased from 30 to 60 in 2013.The narrator told us that the young woman and her partner lived 'just over a mile away' from the school, St. Stephen's Primary in Hammersmith W12. Although we were told that she had been a regular member of the associated church since childhood (lots of references to attendance as a child, less certain of her adult attendance) she only met criteria number 3 under the admissions criteria. Crucially, she did not live in the church parish, which extends at least 1.5 miles, so much further than the catchment areas of popular non-faith schools in Hammersmith and Fulham. The school she was offered, (her 4th choice and a non-church school) is located in W6 - I assume she lived in this area because her child also attended a nursery in W6. There are 3 C of E primary schools in W6 - she would have been guaranteed a place in at least one of them if she had applied with a church reference and St Paul's Primary offered places to all its applicants. Perhaps her 2nd and 3rd choices were not church schools at all; maybe the outstanding John Betts Primary also in W6 (where the doctor's wife secured a place) which only had 4 non-sibling places with a distance cut-off of 0.0.896 of a mile or one of the equally popular free schools?

She might be kicking herself now though for not choosing to apply to St Paul's C of E Primary as the Ofsted report went from 'requires improvement' to 'outstanding' in April 2015 and the non church school she was allocated (her 4th choice ) went from 'good' to 'requires improvement' in March 2015. Next year it might be impossible to gain entry to St Paul's Primary without a church reference so not ''pointless'' to attend church for a school place.

"OP- if you have a high achieving child then check what happens to the high achievers at any school you're looking at. If they don't do well, then it's time to panic. But check first."

I've probably been too lax, but how do you check this out?

Look on the DfE website where you can easily compare 'expected progress' between any schools you choose for the categories of low, middle and high ability.
it provide a way of comparing like-for-like which GCSEs don't.

We've just heard that our grammar has the best value added score in the county I think?

I used to think that teaching in a grammar was probably a bit of a sinecure. But after speaking to some of the teachers at DD's school I realise they are under huge pressure to show good value added scores. Not easy when virtually every girl enters the school in Yr 7 on high Level 5s and lots of Level 6s.

Pressure can be intense, and there's high concerns if a girl is consistently 'only' ever getting a B in a subject.

whoregasm
^We've just heard that our grammar has the best value added score in the county I think?
Extremely unlikely
BUT, come the January league tables, we'll all hit the sort button

grammars can only hit high VA with tutored kids by fiddling the numbers
I hope they get what they deserve

the GOOD VA schools are those who have a shit intake and do pretty well with them : infinitely harder and should be much higher paid

sadly our policy makers are London Centric prep school arses who would not know a comp if it hit them in the face

"We've just heard that our grammar has the best value added score in the county I think?"
Really? I presume best value added for a grammar school, rather than overall?

I thought your dd had a level 4 in maths (??) going in to her grammar and came out with an A Bertrand. That would be good value added.

clavinova
the multiple of Bertrands children is not data

statistically, selective schools do much worse in VA due to tutoring

Not all grammar school areas are highly selective - in some areas the grammars will have 10-15% of pupils with level 4s who come out with As and Bs at GCSE instead of the usual Cs.

But tutoring isn't magical. What I have witnessed among my friends and aquaitances around here is children who are already clever. Predicted high level 5s in Yr 6. Have gone through school always on the top table etc. Then they go and get some 11+ technique and timing skills with a tutor.

I don't think there's many average kids, intensively being tutored, scraping a pass and then spending the next 7 years hopelessly struggling and constantly needing extra tuition in lots of subjects.

There just aren't enough tutors around here to anywhere meet that sort of demand.

Oh Clavinova lets not go there :
the very presence of selective schools, by definition creates "fail" schools
and thus the tutoring war
the kids who get in are those who are best prepared, not the brightest
which makes all KS1 / KS2 comparisons an utter joke.

We're not massively selective here. Just the top 20% I think? So still room for plenty of VA presumably?

Can see it would be much harder in a top 5% supet selective grammar though.

Whore
Are there tutors in your area?

Do 80% of pupils get told they failed at age 11?

I disagree talkinpeace.

I think the majority of grammar pupils happen to be both very bright AND well prepared.

If grammar schools were mainly filled with average pupils who had just been well prepped for the 11+, then their GCSE and A Level results would be pretty average.

Unless of course, thousands of grammar parents were paying to have their average child very well tutored and prepped in all their GCSE subjects and A Level subjects for years and years.

That's a lot of money. Tutors typically charge £30 per hour, per subject. Most grammar pupils take 10 or 12 GCSEs. A very lot of money.

And that's a lot of tutors. 1200 pupils at our grammar. All of them needing hours and hours of tutoring every week, in lots of subjects. For years. That's a huge number of tutors. Especially as there's another grammar in town with over 900 pupils. And the grammars in surrounding towns. More thousands of 'average' pupils all needing this extra tutoring for years?

Not enough tutors. Not even close.

Talkinpeace. A very large number of the children who sit the 11+ here do pass it. Parents put their child in for it, knowing they have a very healthy chance at passing becayse they're bright and because they have prepared.

It's not mandatory to sit it. Lots of children don't sit it.

Many parents are perfectly happy to send their child to their local school and have no interest in a grammar education.

And, as the vast majority of tutors are qualified teachers, most still working, they only have a few hours a week to offer for tutoring.

Thousands and thousands of secretly ''average' ability grammar pupils all needing constant support, in loads of subjects, from extra tutoring. And all throughout the 7 years of their school career.

Where do they find all the necessary tutors to fulfil this hidden demand? And where do all these tutors find all the spare hours every week necessary to tutor in (on top of their teaching careers). And where do these secretly average grammar pupils find all the spare hours every week to spend with tutors, getting tutored in all their subjects? Assuming these children attend school every day, and have regular homework every night (approx. 1.5 hrs per night for our grammar). Many children travel in from miles away. Long commutes. Then they have to eat and sleep of course.

Just not enough time. Nowhere near enough time.

So it's lucky that none of it is actually necessary isn't it.

I would totally agree that inner city schools with high levels of EAL are the best for high achievers. Last year we had a very week cohort on paper but when results came out they were amazing. But it did make us smile when the local indies and grammar lauded their 10/11 A* pupils in the local press when we had more than double the amount. The work ethic and ambition of refugee families is startling and certainly makes teachers lives easier.

But that is just your school dexter and doesn't necessarily translate into similar results at other inner city schools.
The inner city school that my DS would have gone to had we not moved house (and where several of my relatives attend) has a lot of ambitious refugee families but it still only managed 26% A-C with very few of those grades at A or A whereas the independent school that my DS attends (which is the most local indie to the inner city school) got 90% A*-A.

We really cannot say that all inner city schools are great or that all indies are great as that just isn't the case.

Sorry that 26% is actually 26% of pupils getting 5 grades at A*-C, which is still very poor IMO.

Well I don't aspire to speak for all schools but in the city I work in we have the highest % by far of EAL pupils and the best results, levels of progress etc. I have also visited schools such as Mulberry in Tower Hamlets and been in awe of the attitude to learning there. It always irritates me when people assume that because I work in an inner city school in an area of high deprivation pupils have low aspirations/ achievements.in my top set of 32 not one pupil didn't get at least one A and no one got below a B. Over half the class got A* in both Language and Literature and 70% of the class had lived in the country less than 7 years. There are so many comments on mumsnet about how poor the state option is, it is a shame there is so little publicity about the many, many good ones!

There are many many good state schools but people are highly unlikely to start a thread complaining about their state choices if they have good state choices.
London is quite different from other areas around the country, firstly because London schools are funded very well in comparison to other state schools around the country and secondly because a lot of state schools in London have a greater mix of lower, middle and higher income families than in some other inner city areas.
The region I live in has taken a far bigger percentage of refugee families over the last 15 years than most other areas, if has certainly taken more than its fair share (and much more than London). The area also has pockets of very high deprivation and very high unemployment. Some children do succeed and do well at even the worst schools in the region, but sadly many do not. If I pop over the 'border' from the main inner city part of the region and into the leafy suburb much wealthier part of the region all of the state schools are excellent and all achieve very good results statistically.
Being in the catchment of the poorer schools means those parents who want something better might come on here and have a moan or they might try and get a place at an out of catchment school or an independent school (or do all 3) and I don't see what is wrong with that.
It would be great if everybody had the option of a state school where the top sets all get A.*-A but not everybody does.

What loobrush said.

We don't have lots of ambitious refugee families Dexter, nor the benefit of inner city London funding and excellent teachers. We have schools where Ofsted says high achievers need more challenging work, high teacher turnover and surrounded by white working class estates where there are chronically low expectations among families.

Not all grammars are super-selective. Pass marks for entry to our local ones are around 60% in each 11+ paper. I read with horror that some super-selectives pass rate is 90% +!!!!

9 kids in our DS's year at primary school went to the local grammars out of just 28 in his class. Tutoring isn't an issue round here - only a couple out of those 9 had private tutoring because it's well known that working on the "top table" in the later years of primary is virtually a guarantee of 11+ success when it's such a low pass mark. There is little snobbery round here because the grammars aren't perceived as elite - they're just regarded as another option to compare with the church schools, a variety of comps, etc. Many people simply don't choose the grammars for a variety of reasons, such as not wanting a single sex school, not wanting to be taught the compulsory classics, or even simply that they're easily accessible due to their locations (not on bus routes, so a long walk!).

That's how it always used to be and how it should be now. It's the minority of super-selectives in certain areas that seem to give the entire country's grammar system a bad name. Back in the 60's in my town, the grammar school was half the size of the secondary, so the top third of primary school leavers passed the 11+ and got a place in the grammar. That's certainly not elitism.

My son's best friend decided not to take the 11+ as he'd decided he didn't want to go to the grammar anyway (he would easily have passed it). Reasoning was that it didn't do football as a games option whereas he wanted to play footie in school. He's at a church school instead!

I can imagine that the super-selectives are horrendous due to snobbery, extensive tutoring, pushy parenting, etc., but some people need to look beyond their immediate local area and realise that not all areas are like that. In our area, it's the way it should be, grammars sit alongside church and comp schools and people can make a real choice about which school to choose according to what they offer and their children's preferences.