When parents are slagging off the local comp...

[Everyoneafter3]

I've posted before about my concerns over the local secondary, which, thanks to comments on this board and an excellent recent Ofsted, are very much allayed. I had a very good read of school newsletters etc and am much happier. Dd1 (Y4) is musically gifted and will also audition for a specialist music school.

The area in which we live is very affluent: many children round here go to fee-paying independent schools. These dc are going to school and telling my dd (and others) that the local secondary is rubbish ("my mum and dad say..."). One particularly stupid parent has said at home that "no child of mind will set foot in x school" which of course is coming back home with our dd.

Dd1 has now got it into her head that the local school is terrible, that she's really upset to go to not a good school, that she wishes we weren't poor (we're not! But no, we can't afford independent school fees without having to sacrifice other stuff we prioritise as a family). She's been researching exam results and all sorts.

For our part we've said well look at any local school she'd like to, although as we live across the road from the school in question it'd be unlikely that she'd get in.

I'm heartily sick of parents telling their dc how awful the local school is. It's simply not fair. My dc won't receive a 'lesser' education. They aren't going to a 'rubbish' school. If this continues I'm tempted to speak to their current primary school tbh. What else can I do? I've told dd to not listen, we've looked at the school website, talked about results (!) but I'm at a loss.

Are me and my colleagues in state schools just fundamentally wasting our time trying to give our kids the same shot as people who've had the odds stacked in their favour sinve their mam got them a french tutor aged 4?

In London, in particular, there are an awful lot of very rich kids in state schools who have access to tutoring, parental support etc. It would be ridiculous to argue that these kids are less privileged than many of the kids on scholarships/bursaries in private schools. It is not a straight state v private split. Nuanced decisions are required and are taken by universities - these don't give unfair advantages to rich kids in selective state schools, but acknowledge the very real issues faced by some kids in low performing state schools.

At the same time, universities just cannot take kids who are unlikely to be able to cope with the courses. This is the very big challenge faced by all of us working in widening participation.

TBH I don't see many applicants with DofE, MUN, HMC and other very institutionalised extra curricular activities. I do see some with highly creative and individualized exploration of their interests and life goals and these make for very interesting PSs.

bobo applicants often don't mention such things: not enough space and probably not relevant for most courses.

Neither of my two mentioned anything like that on their PS. DD went on about some specific playwrights she's obsessed with and DS nattered on about a competition he entered.

I doubt either swung it one way or the other .

Indeed, Get, which is why it's not worth state school advisors/applicants getting hung up on what they perceive to be the advantages of the independently educated applicants.

Perhaps the answer is that some schools advise their students to make their applications more strategic and others don't?

When lots of candidates have great predicated grades, surely the distinguishing factors for the most competitive courses is the interview?

Oxbridge, Medicine, Vet & Dentistry have these routinely, don't they?

It's the interview where the careful and directed prepping of private schools plays a huge role IMO.

cow the problem is that too many state schooled pupils are receiving no/poor/tardy advice.

Alyosha for Oxbridge it's a multi faceted process.

GCSE grades, predicted A levels, pre tests, interview, reference, personal statement.

I would not say that the interview was particularly more important than grades/test results.

I'm no expert on medical applications but the BMAT must be important.

Curl - I'm sure it is for most candidates.

But for lots of private schools with nice arrangements with the colleges - the interview plays a big role.

I.e. I had underwhelming predicted grades (AAB in 2007), but still got an Oxford interview thanks to my school's connection with the college. Didn't get an offer because I was dreadful at interview.

One girl a year from my school was "known" to always be offered BBB by one particular college for History etc. etc.

Private schools have all sorts of cushy connections with Oxbridge/other unis that State schools don't have.

I think you should name and shame the school and the college, if that's even in the ball park of being true.

My DS had an interview and also an aptitude test. His school ( independent) is well regarded. The only prep he had for interview was 2 practice interviews , 1 from his subject teacher at school, and 1 where they had a reciprocal arrangement with another nearby school so you had a practice one with speaking to someone you did not know. Neither of them really helped him ( he says) other than just practicing sitting down in a chair and breathing and speaking ( although he did say that might help , he was just too nervous during his real interview to remember that )

That is better than many will have had , but I would not call it careful or more properly directed prepping. Maybe I am wrong. Essentially when he wanted to study X subject , they ( the school) basically just said to him , go and read as much as you can about X subject and make sure you are very interested in it.

No DoE , no county /high level nor talented sport - just does it for fun / music - enthusiastic rather than talented - other EC activities 2 lines on PS.

But for lots of private schools with nice arrangements with the colleges - the interview plays a big role.

At my college most of the interviewers for my subject are not British and were not educate in Britain. The candidates invited for interview are chosen on the basis of their grades, with absolutely no "nice arrangements" with private schools.

Why, why on earth, would academics choose second rate candidates, when they are going to teach them for the next three years?

BTW my school did and does send a fair number of students to my college. But the offers given are standard ones and almost all of us got/get Firsts, so it would be pretty hard to argue that we are being admitted just because of school connections.

I agree with pp - if this is true, name and shame, because what you are describing has certainly not been happening in the 20 years I've been watching.

My understanding is that certain schools and colleges have significant links with Oxbridge colleges. My ds school doesn't appear to and I think he's at a disadvantage because of this. He's in the same position that I was in at his age in that some teachers are saying he should think about an Oxbridge application. I didn't take that any further and my school (a comp) didn't push me. I hope that ds at least has a go.

Private schools have all sorts of cushy connections with Oxbridge/other unis that State schools don't have.

I do not believe this - I really don't - there are many reasons you can say that a child from x school may have a better shot than y school - but the days of cushy connections I truly believe are gone. That does not mean to say there is a equal playing field but let's understand the problem properly.

We are all certainly led to believe that cushy connections between schools (even houses at schools) and Oxbridge colleges are long gone, as indeed we are led to believe that family connections with colleges are also a thing of the past.

My understanding is that certain schools and colleges have significant links with Oxbridge colleges.

But, again, the academics select who gets interviewed. There is absolutely no input from the college as a whole. It is the academics' decisions -- and in many subjects (not just mine) the academics are not British, were not educated in Britain, may well not be in agreement with private education etc etc. Why would they choose a less qualified private school candidate when they are going to have to teach them for three years? People are looking for conspiracies where they simply don't exist.

A good private school (not just a private school) is probably more likely to have Oxbridge graduates on the staff. More likely to be clued up about the process. And private school pupils are more likely to know people who went to Oxbridge. They are less likely to be overwhelmed by the place and the process.

There is no need for a "special relationship". The playing field is practically vertical without it!

I can say from both sides that I've seen nothing cushy.

The admissions team in my department are a mixed bunch. I went to a northern comp BTW.

We're all really committed to widening access. For which we are not paid. Why would we bother if we were just going to shoo a lot of posh boys .

On the other hand, I have DC at a school with an exceptional success rate at Oxbridge.
Neither received any advice on college. Or course.

I could weep when I see how nearby LEA have such poor records of sending children to Oxbridge. The children in these areas are not stupid. There must be some bias.

I repeat the main barriers to access are

1. Not applying
2. Taking the wrong subjects
3. Grades not good enough.
4. Results of pre tests not high enough.

Get - DC at your DS' school have exceptionally stripy parents. Why would school need to give advice?

They are less likely to be overwhelmed by the place and the process.

Yes this - until they get to the interview (quote from DS - because as he said you are all likely to be nervous then - or you should be ) but but - yes they are more likely to get to the interview because they have actually applied

Honestly?
I would be one of the parents who would say that I would NOT be sending my dcs to our secondary if I had the choice (as it happens we don't, unless we go private, which can't afford) after my experience with dc1. (That was a school rated as excellent etc etc).
Dc1 is now in Y8 and they are still struggling and th school is still proving to be 'not very good'. At least with children such as Dc1.
Then came dc2 who had no choice but to go to the same school. All schools around still massively oversubscribed.
Dc2 settled fantastically well, much better than I ne their Y6 teacher ever envisaged. This is clearly the right sort of school for dc2. It is not for Dc1.

Conclusion?
Even now that I have seen dc2 settling down so happily, Im still unhappy about the school. What it says is that, if your child is sort of middle of the run, they will be do well. From talking to other parents, take a child with SN and they will look after them well. Take a child who is doing well/really well, they are let down. There is no desire to do well within the school or to really success.
There are still big issues with bullying. And fights within the school grounds. And general mayhem in classes.

If I was in youR place? I would remind your dd that there is not such a thing as a 'fantastic school' or a really 'rubbish one where I would never send my dcs'. It's mor likely to be an issue with 'the best school for YOU' and whatever is the best school will be different depending on the child and depending on what you are expecting from school.
I would still do a hell of a lot of research to understand why some parents have such clear cut opinions about that school. My experience is that a 'good' school according to OFSTED can still have issues with bullying, etc etc which IMO makes it a school where I wouldn't want to send my dcs btw

bobo without school's advice how are the DC to know which colleges are taking under the counter offers .