What are STATE schools in London like?

[TeenTimesTwo]

I've been reading with mild interest the issue of exploding offers for CLGS.

But it made me wonder. From what I see in media (TV news, and papers), I have the impression that state schools in London have made great steps forward over the past 10-15 years and are now considered very good.

Is that true? Not just for schools with convoluted admissions criteria (like Grey Coats?) but on average for your ordinary run of the mill local secondary?

If so, why so much angst over applying to so many private schools? And the willingness to set up your 11 year olds for such long commutes? Is the education really so much better? Or is it 'snob value' or fear of the unknown, or 'because that's what my social circle does' or old reputations?

TeenTimesTwo In answer to your original OP:

I think Whitechapelfatberg nailed it in her first response to your question. Classes are large and funding less plentiful than in many/most private schools. Behaviour is mixed. A lot of people go private to avoid that.

Of my dd's state primary class, about 50% went private for secondary. This was despite the state options being pretty good, including a range of high-performing comprehensives and grammars.

Why? Well, some of the children gained entry into some of the independents that are amongst the best in the country, some of the children gained entry into independents with large bursaries or smaller scholarships, some of them chose the independent route quite probably because they (the parents) had been educated privately and they just couldn't imagine doing anything different.

Some who chose the independent route did so because they weren't convinced that their child would cope with the culture of a large state secondary (where they are one amongst many children; where they might not be in the top sets but in ones where behaviour is more challenging). I'm pretty sure some chose the independent sector because their children had a SEND and they found more nurturing, SEND focused schools in the private sector. I suspect one or two chose the independent route because they were a bit thrown by the class mix of the state schools - though I never found a single parent actually saying that.

As for what the schools are like: my two were in the top streams of state schools. Their classes were, indeed, large. The facilities in dd's school are pretty ropey. The 'treats' (trips, enrichment opportunities) are few and far between. The subjects on offer to study are limited. I write this in comparison with what is on offer at local grammar schools and the independents her friends attend - mind you, her friends are at top independents, rather than ordinary independents.

The school is very mixed, however - both in terms of class and racial background. I wonder if it would be that mixed outside of London? There are lots of very ambitious children in her class, with very ambitious parents. There are lots of high-achievers. The social and economic background of her classmates is very mixed, too. Though I don't think there are any Russian oligarchs in the class - those really do tend to stay in the private sector.

Teaching is rigorous, with high expectations. While I said that the range of subjects offered is perhaps more limited that in some schools, it also has some surprising areas of excellence, which go beyond anything you might reasonably expect. Music is amazing, for example.

In short, if you had the offer of a place at CLGS, and could take that up, you'd choose that over my dd's school. But my dd's school is pretty great, imo.

TalkinPeace You keep saying that nowhere in London is deprived. This statement flies in the face of actual, real statistics. London contains some of the most deprived communities in the UK. This is a fact, backed up by real, actual statistics.

We live in a borough that is in two halves socio-economically. There is great affluence and privilege and yet not a complete bus route away there is real deprivation. This reflects in the schools, state and private (we also have one of the top 5 uber academic public schools in London and a top-performing GDST school too), and indeed the choices that local families make about educating their DC.

There is a huge issue and angst about which state secondaries people will apply to on behalf of their children. Basically three of the choices (we have fewer than 10 in total) are in the deprived part of the borough and another one seems to attract an intake at least in part from said deprived area. Guess what? No-one with academic and social aspirations for their children tends to apply to those three/four - they will apply out of borough rather than do so. Or they opt to educate their children privately, if they've got the money and aren't ideologically against it. So it's quite common to see quite a high % of the state primary school cohort in the 'naice' parts of the borough defecting to private education at secondary school transfer stage. And I'm sure I read somewhere that 35% of the pupils are educated out of borough and/or in the private sector.

There are lots of UK nationals who are 'economic migrants' in London. I always think that those who moved to where the jobs are have more 'nous' and will be more education oriented for their own DC. They understand the value of education and of being faced with an uncertain career future (had they not moved 'down south') which in turn spurs them on to be invested in ensuring their own DC get good schooling.

On the subject of funding, I really dread to think what it's like outside London if some of you posters are staying that London state secondaries are better funded than their counterparts elsewhere in the country. DS's super-selective seems very poor in many ways (although I do wonder whether it's because they pay the teachers more than their comprehensive colleagues?). Fortunately, many parents make the monthly 'voluntary contributions (I've worked out we've paid £1.5K so far) and the PTA makes a killing. At least they provide text books and lots of super enriching opportunities at his school! At DD's comprehensive (outstanding and in a leafy 'burb'), there are no text books at all, few hard copy sheets handed out for homework and none of the enriching extra-curricular activities/trips that DS has at his school.

I do think that there is much snobbery about the state school system, some of which is unfounded. There are many urban myths circulating and many of those perpetuating them are doing so on the basis of hearsay, or experience of state schools that is very out-of-date. However there are very many left-leaning, uber educated (many Oxbridge), professional parents who would never touch private schools with a barge-pole. There are also lots of 'champagne socialist' parents, even in parts of London with very highly sought after comprehensives, who choose to educate their DC privately.

I have had experience of state, state grammar and private schools. State schools are seriously underfunded. This means there are no resources, no items for science experiments, no textbooks, sometimes no subject teachers, sometimes no heating, no computer maintenance, etc, etc. This causes stress for heads, governors, teachers and most importantly for students. Those stresses are removed in private schools and I was lucky to be able to remove those stresses for at least some of my children. State education is not as comfortable as it was when I was a student (never thought I would ever say that) and parents are being asked at some state schools to pay large amounts of money for basics, not even extracurricular, which should come from government. I have never heard before of a situation like CLGS and think it disgraceful. Paying or not, these are children, young people, being treated badly.

Agree with cantkeepawayforever
All our counties secondary schools have budget defects, one of lowest funded counties too.
WE have at best 0% chance of accessing a Ofsted "GOOD" school, in fact 65% of our nearest schools are either inadequate or in special measures, other 35% require improvement.
But 96% of local parents use one of them.
Problem in England is two fold, to many Politian's are privately educated/Oxbridge educated and only care about London and SE, second London and SE gets bulk of spending
Anothernewt bet our schools make our local ones look like ETON, but we aren't snobs or avoid lesser mortals, and all kids use them, just local Tory MP avoids them for his daughters and spends £52000 on their education, whilst letting his local schools rot.
London has it easy, YOU ALL LIVING IN A COSY BUBBLE.

OP, I was wondering the same, not since the CLSG drama but before I even had children, I used to go to work at 6:30am/7am in the morning and I would see the Dulwich College school bus in Fulham (I am not sure it still exists, this was some years ago), and boys would be stepping on the bus in those early morning hours, and I thought, how crazy is this, they are so desperate not to go to the local state schools that they would rather get up at 6am in the morning and go on a bus for 45min. It is quite crazy, and indeed, if all those kids' parents (or at least a significant amount of those) decided collectively to send their kids to the local state school, the intake would be totally fine.
We have a situation in Kensington and Chelsea where 55% of families educate their children privately at primary and secondary level. All you would need is for a fraction of those to switch to state school. But nobody wants to be the first one, I guess.
The private schools and the faith schools make it hard. I have the impression the upper middle classes / wealthy people go to private no matter what, most of the English middle class go for the Church of England Schools, the French / Spanish / Irish / Italians try to get their kids into the Oratory or Cardinal Vaughan, and where does it leave the atheist middle class? Try to join a fancy private school where you don't really belong, or try to get one of the few outstanding secondary schools with a decent amount of high performing children. The catchment areas for these are usually 300 - 400 metres.
What I don't like about our outstanding local secondary school is that

• they only start streaming from Year 8. At least for Maths and English, in a true comp, the ability range will be so wide that I really don't believe the most able kids will progress as well as they would in a selective private school. I have looked at their Year 7 Maths curriculum and I am expecting my kids to be covering this stuff in Year 4/5 at prep school. I don't need them to go to a place like Tiffin (and they probably wouldn't get in), but I don't want them taught Maths in a class room where some kids don't know their times tables or don't know the basics. And that will happen in a comp
• it's a Church of England school and religious education is a mandatory GCSE subject
• the only languages on offer are Spanish and French
• there is no Computer Science GCSE or A-Level
• the A-Level choices are quite limited as they have option blocks that you have to choose from, so it may happen that if you take Maths, for example, you can't choose History A-level anymore. Timetabling issues or whatever it is
• also, if you read the feedback on mumsnet even on the supposedly best state schools (Fortismere, Greycoat, Holland Park, Lady Margaret etc.), it is actually quite mixed. I wonder if some people just don't want to take the risk. Of course the kids will be fine long term and they may well end up at the same university, but are they going to love school? Are they going to be enthusiastic about going there? Will they be happy and inspired? Or will they just go to get their A's at GCSEs and get into university x but look back and think they wasted a lot of time and didn't really enjoy it?

Anyway, fees are rising so much that I think more and more people will be forced to consider their local state schools and that will hopefully bring about positive change. How the councils will tens of thousands of extra students who are currently educated privately is another question!

Education/NHS - same problem. Neither are free. They belong to us ths people. It's tume the people stopped being grateful and started demanding excellence.

We sent one of purs to LMS for two years. It was badly run with diabolical pastoral and academic standards. Notwithstanding the fact an unofficial apartheid operated in the context of class and race. It was very yoxic with a two tier system of sanctions whereby underprivileged girls were allowed to do as they pleased with barely a sanction (assault/theft etc) but well behaved middle class girls were screamed at and treated very punitively for the most minor misdemeanour. It got an outstanding Ofsted when teaching was rated only as good. I didn't think that was supposed to happen

It got worse too after dd left.

need to add, as I was just looking this up about my local "outstanding" sought after secondary state school (LMS, as it happens) with a catchment area of 300 metres for open places:
out of 90 girls in Sixth Form, only 3 took A-Level further maths. All three scored a C. 18 at least took Maths A-level (not even a quarter of the cohort!) and only one of those achieved an A*.
I am not saying that everybody should be taking Further Maths or scoring A* in A-Level Maths, but I would at least like to see a group of 10-15 kids at that level. Also, what does it say about the level of teaching if none of those who chose Further Maths achieved better than a C? And this is supposed to be one of the best comps.

DD gets to study subjects and have experiences that parents on MN lament is the reason they choose independent for their DC (wide range of languages, classics, regular lectures, amazing extra curricular, teachers who do an amazing job). We live in the suburbs of London and DD gets a great state education. I am in a job where I went from a comp to a rather average university and ended up managing two Oxbridge people. I know from experience life isn’t just about where you went to school but your resilience, your capabilities and personality. I know some privately educated childen who fell at the final university hurdle as they were not used to the niggles of getting along in the state sector. It isn’t just about the school but the whole mix.

Traalaa. Agree with you that all children are entitled to free education. But it is no longer free. How many posters on this thread have been asked to contribute by their state school? I was asked to pay minimum £150 per term at a state school but there were still no resources as many parents did not pay, although a few wealthier ones gave £1000 - £2000 per annum. Much of the money raised was used to cover legal expenses when they were getting rid of teachers, not for resources. Why should I pay for bad management when my child is still stressed by lack of resources? Many parents at that school employed tutors to get their DCs through GCSE and A Levels because of the problems. What do non-tutoring state school parents feel about state parents who employ tutors outside of school? The whole area of education in this country is murkier than it first appears. Damian Hind needs to forget about building more grammars and needs to concentrate on the schools already suffering and I don't mean free schools.

I was extremely lucky to be able to go private with my next DC. However, it has not changed my views on a good free education for all. I just now realise that that is an almost impossible dream.

PettsWoodParadise, care to share which school your DC attends? Sounds brilliant.

"State primary school parents are very smug about obtaining places at Indy senior schools at 11+ but they are less smug 6 years and £120k later when they are visiting the same universities as the state primary classmates who remained in the state system."

That assumes the parents care only about the outputs, not the whole journey and experience of the secondary years.

Talkin - this thread is in 'secondary education' and your comment is based on KS1. Can you confirm whether your assessment of the existence of dire schools in London includes secondaries?

What do non-tutoring state school parents feel about state parents who employ tutors outside of school? It skews results so the amazing league table positions of some state secondaries may not be quite as stellar as they seem. Also of course it means that there is no 'parity' to pupils' results really.

Is a child from a comprehensive on the 'wrong side of town' (who has had little parental invention and no tutoring) who gets all high Bs less clever than his counterpart at a very leafy, sought after comprehensive (whose parents have employed tutors to help improve results) and gets As?

Virtually every child known to our family, of my DS's age, had a tutor for at least one subject, if not more, through GCSEs.

I think that with private education most parents are buying into securing the type of education that will get the results, the contacts, the polish and a cohort with similar values and backgrounds. In the state sector many parents will vehemently state that they're anti-independent schools but be very sharp-elbowed about ensuring that their DC get into a state secondary that is similar (particularly in London) AND then pay for tutors - where's the difference really?

And the tutoring market seems to be flourishing in a way it certainly didn't when I was at school.

I read the City threads with frustration and now this similarly. So many posters in a giant bubble of privilege.

We live in London and our children go to state schools. Like the majority of people living in the city, we have no choice about that because we can't afford private school. Every single child from my son's year 6 primary class went to state secondaries, with one getting a place at a grammar school almost an hour's journey away.

Our kids are a mix of abilities. Our son could probably have got into a selective private school if we'd had the money, but I doubt all our kids would. In this corner of MN where children are picking and choosing their school offers, it's easy to forget that most children don't stand a chance at the outset.

Would our kids have a better experience at private schools with all the facilities they have? Very likely, but we don't have that option. I have been supremely irritated by the many references on the City threads along the lines of 'there are no schools where we live'. Of COURSE there are. They're just schools where other people have to send their children.

The number of people who went to private school who deny that this gave them any sort of advantage is legion. I know plenty. Living in total denial of what a pernicious system we live in. They would read threads on here and nod along in agreement of the common sense approach that regretfully you just can't have your kids going to these state schools. While we continue to have this damaging two tier education system, and I imagine that will be forever, we are disadvantaging thousands of children every single year.

For the OP, London secondaries are mostly decent schools battling the decreasing funding from a government that can't prioritise educating the majority of English and Welsh students. They absolutely don't compare to selective private schools but many of them are capable of educating children well. Compared to schools with even less funding outside the capital they are lucky.

I believe PettsWoodParadise DC goes to a superselective Grammar based on previous threads. Those are (to many people) just as difficult access as private schools (for different reasons obviously.

There isn't a desirable solution given the funding cuts in state education. Our children including mine who also attend state will be up against a strong cohort for jobs in the future. Employers will not care at all which school yout child went to and won't make concessions. They are only interested in the candidate thar best fits for them and gives them the most value. This may out me but yesterday we ran a corporate insight day for local state school Yr 10 and yr11 with a mixed ability cohort from 5 schools- all from a top 40% wealthy area (as per stats provided by previous poster) as my company is located in m4 corridor. We went over cv, interview tips, did group tasks, challenges and also final presentations to the judges. I just came away quite disappointed at how disengaged these students were and their lacking abilities in basic maths and English vocab. FRankly, they have a lot to do to measure up to the applicants who do successfully gain summer internships, workplacements and graduate jobs. My advice is that many state kids need a rocket up their arse or else they literally have no chance to make it and get their first job. (We had a live q&a with our recruiter who gave quite anice honest account that he receives 200CVs nationally for each internship or summer placement) and he only spends 60 to 120seconds scanning each one.

If we reach one child I'd be pleased - 99% have never seen the inside of a corporate environment but I just don't know what the answer is. Else we will have an even wider social problem if we continue granting places to private school or state bright kids who come from supported and wealth backgrounds of whom several are under my wing this summer.

You can’t judge how good a school is from its position in a league table. Most of the top ‘500’ schools are selective so merely reflect the intake, as do some of the very ‘posh’ so-called comps.

Here in S London we are certainly not in sensible reach of selective schools so our schools are true comps.

My Dc have had / are getting an excellent state education in primary and 2 different comps. Both secondaries have high Pupil Premium numbers, serve council estates, very ethnically diverse. Both have excellent teaching, manage behaviour well across all abilities and have instant and rigorous policies to deal with bullying.

Both have excellent music and art departments and offer free individual music lessons to all PP pupils and cheap to all.

Neither is good at sport: they don’t have playing fields, or good facilities. They could do more in terms of trips out and extra curricular.

But we live in London: we are surrounded by great projects available through theatres, galleries and music venues. You can work with top musicians from weekly workshops on the S Bank to a youth music project in Brixton.

Listening to other parents talk, many make a decision based on social selection, and some myths based on the comps of the 70s and 80s.

I’m sure not all London comps are good or places you would feel all that happy about, but I would have thought that anyone who can afford to put a couple of kids through CLGS would have more control over where they live than someone in social housing.

I agree that there are excellent state schools in London. But often they have tiny catchment areas. We live over two miles away from the two excellent comprehensives in our borough so couldn’t get into either. Our closest schools are two ‘outstanding’ faith secondaries that we didn’t qualify for as we are not actively following either of those faiths. Navigating the London grammar/ faith/ comprehensive system is also not without its stresses.

I think on the main state schools do a good job for the masses. But do state schools prepare the pupils enough for top jobs, hone their skills, and prepare them for the realities of job hunting?

My academic, A* / 9 kids have not seen the inside of a ‘corporate environment ‘ by age 15, and neither have their middle class friends, and I’m not sure how inspiring they would find it, tbh.!

CookieDough - corporate insight day for Y10/11 sounds fantastic

I have one DC in a super-selective and another in a relatively 'leafy area' comp (although it is by no means THE sought-after local school and was 3rd on DC2's CAF). DC1 is near the end of secondary school education and DC2 has just started so it's not entirely fair to make comparisons. However, there are glaring differences.

DC1's school very much operates like a private school but without the super facilities. Text books aplenty, lots of enriching extra-curricular activities, some of the teachers are super involved even in their own time, lots of overseas trips, CCF, just about everyone does DofE...Expected monthly voluntary contributions of £35(+)...

DC2's school very different. No textbooks, no overseas trips (or even UK based ones), only a few do DofE, no CCF...Expected annual contribution of £25...The cultural and socio-economic mix is much more diverse although there are still some pupils from very well off backgrounds who by rights one might expect to be at the local independent schools.

DC2 is already grumbling about how unfair it is that she's not going to get the same opportunities as DC1 (although to be fair he has not done lots of the overseas trips - we can't afford it!).

So even in the state system there are vast differences. It's not fair at all really. And money talks every bit as much in determining state school choice (certainly in London), as it does in opting to go down the private route.

CookieDoughKid

CookieDoughKid

You are so right. I teach in a state secondary and am banging my head against a brick wall trying to tell pupils that there is a world outside their limited experience. Many have almost no awareness of current affairs, geography, vocabulary etc and often seem proud of their ignorance. This is due to their limited home lives and cannot be fixed by good teaching whatever OFSTED might think. If a child has no desire to learn it is impossible to succeed. State secondaries have plenty of good teachers and the appalling politicisation of education and ridiculous statements in the media are a disgrace. Schools are the scapegoats for the social ills that successive governments have failed to address and paying for private education for a few is not the answer. I don’t blame parents who send their children to private schools as what they can offer in terms of enrichment is undeniably better and parents who pay for education have a vested interest in encouraging their children to learn. This is far from the case in your average state comprehensive.

We also have an issue with DC2's school which I find super amusing. Pupils to their state secondary literally cross paths at every turn with those heading in the opposite direction for one of the nearby very sought-after public schools! Given the super location of the two schools, you'll also find that some of pupils were previously at primary school together! Go figure!

Reeling And money talks every bit as much in determining state school choice (certainly in London), as it does in opting to go down the private route.

Would you care to expand on this?

I am guessing you mean
a) Ability to private tutor for grammar / super selective tests
b) Ability to move house to live in the 'right' catchment
Do you also mean
c) Ability to have the time to navigate through hoops such as aptitude tests or going to church for 5 years
d) Anything else?

I've been quite interested to hear about 'expected donations' as our school doesn't ask for one and I haven't heard of it round my area at all. (I might start another thread about it.)